On January 8, 1918, during World War I which America had just entered nine months earlier, US President Woodrow Wilson outlined his vision of a post-war world in his “Fourteen Points” speech. He advocated for diplomacy, free trade, the creation of an association of nations, and the redrawing of national borders. But Wilson faced backlash from his Republican opponents, including Senator Henry Cabot Lodge who published his “Reservations About the League of Nations Treaty”, which was subsequently debated in the Senate. This was a clash between a nationalist limited government and a strong executive to achieve ostensibly similar aims. Both supported nationalism with international security and peace, but Wilson had a large-scale vision to have all nations support each other through the League of Nations, while Lodge feared that such an association was simply an excuse to increase internationalist and imperialist power and that it would be bad not just for America, but for all nations.
Wilson actively renounces imperialism and talks about respecting national borders. In the beginning of his speech, Wilson says “the day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world”.[1] Wilson is echoing a growing American sentiment that it was no longer the age of colonialism and imperialism. This was certainly felt by many of the colonies of Europe themselves: independence movements were springing up and gaining momentum in places like India and the Middle East, and Wilson mentions the latter region in this very document. It was also “secret covenants” that had started the war in the first place, as the existence of the Triple Entente and the Central Powers meant that the nations of each were obligated to enter what had started as a relatively minor confrontation in the Balkans. Wilson wants a world “safe for every peace-loving nation which, […] wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression”.[2] As the most prominent example of a colony rebelling against its colonial master, the US felt a sort of kinship towards independence movements in the rest of the world. Wilson advocates for the independence of countries like Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro and for them to have secure borders and access to the sea. So Wilson respects national aspirations in his speech.
However, Wilson believes that this can only be achieved by integrating the US fully in the League of Nations and having it arbitrate the national aspirations of other nations. To this end, Wilson argues that “a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike”.[3] Here he is advocating the League of Nations, with its countries obligated to protect each other. This would be the first international association of the 20th century, and it is arguably fitting that an American president is leading the way since the American entrance into the war had tipped it in favor of the Allies. Ironically, Wilson had earlier campaigned in favor of keeping the US out of the war. In the subsequent debate on Lodge’s reservations, Senator Robinson argues that “the attempt to deny the president participation in withdrawal […] from the League and to vest that authority solely in the two houses of Congress in disregard of the plain provision of the Constitution displays a spirit of narrow opposition to the executive unworthy of the subject and unworthy of the Senate of the United States”.[4] Robinson sees the President as overriding the two houses of Congress and finds it preposterous that anyone would deny this. He believes that those who are opposed to the executive power of the President are narrow minded while those like himself who defer to the president are more broad-minded. There is also clear disagreement over the Constitution from both sides. This is due to their different views, which continue today: originalists generally view the Constitution with a strict and unchanging interpretation, while loose constructionists view it as a living document that can be interpreted with the values of the times. This clash can be seen here, with Wilson’s side taking the latter position and believing that it justifies strong executive powers. This would allow the President to create the League to secure all nations.
Lodge believes that the League is nothing more than a power play by Wilson. One of his points that particularly stands out is that the US has no obligation to protect the territory or independence of any other nation or to interfere in controversies militarily unless the Congress, which is given by the Constitution the sole power to declare war or mobilize forces, allows it by act or joint resolution.[5] The Congress is particularly elevated by Lodge, being mentioned in six of the points. Lodge is afraid that the President may use his executive powers to override Congress and perform actions like going to war without its consent. During this time there was increased wariness of intervention and war from Republicans and others. The US did not traditionally intervene outside its borders or continent, and held to its Monroe Doctrine, but it had just come out of World War I. Lodge does not want the US to enter other people’s wars that according to him will do nothing to benefit the country. He is trying to keep the powers of the President limited and to make sure that multiple politicians agree on an intervention or war. The reservations themselves are meant to demand transparency regarding the League and what’s in it for America, but he is not outright rejecting America’s membership. Later in the debate, Senator Borah articulates another important point about unanimous consent. He argues that this has divided nations over the past 300 years, and gives some examples: “Did not Prussia and Austria and Russia by unanimous consent divide Poland? Did not the United States and Great Britain and Japan and Italy and France divide China and give Shantung to Japan?”[6] He thinks the League is bad not only for America, but also for smaller nations, since larger nations will be able to use “unanimous consent” to take the territory of and divide other nations. Some of the nations in the League, like Britain, France, and Japan, had colonial empires, and they could use their power to divide up or take the territories of smaller nations, like they had in the examples that Borah gave. Shantung is another point that is important, as Japan demands that it be allowed to keep that territory as a condition to sign the treaty. But another reservation withholds American agreement to Japanese rights in that occupied Chinese territory. It shows that Lodge’s camp is also motivated by anti-imperialism, but rather than an internationalist solution that they view as big government and somewhat authoritarian, they want the US to stay out of what they see as the League’s machinations and think this is better not just for the US, but for all countries.
The two visions of a nationalist limited government and a powerful internationalist executive collide in the Senate debate. Both desire a peaceful world where all nations can thrive and imperialism ends. But whilst Wilson believes that the US is obligated to create and lead the League of Nations to protect and engage with all countries and wishes to use his executive powers to this end, Lodge objects that this is only a means of gaining increased power and this will be against the interests of America and all nations. Lodge succeeded in keeping the US out of the League, but the internationalist vision has arguably been stronger over the past century with the US intervening in World War II, proxy conflicts in the Cold War and more recently in the Middle East. This doesn’t mean the debate has gone away though. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum, including Bernie Sanders on the left, and Donald Trump on the right, have advocated non-interventionism.
Bibliography
Digital History ID 3909. “Senate Debate on the League of Nations.” Document. 1919. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3909
Wilson, Woodrow. “President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.” Document, January 8, 1918. Avalon Project. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
[1] Woodrow Wilson, “President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points” (Speech to US Congress, January 8, 1918), Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] “Senate Debate on the League of Nations”, (Document, 1919), Digital History, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3909
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
diegodelaparra 
Leave a comment