Discussion about US history

Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Mass.)

Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Speech to the Senate, August 12, 1919

No revolutionary movement, no internal conflict, of any magnitude can fail to

affect the peace of the world…. At this very moment, who would deny that the condition

of Russia, with internal conflicts raging in all parts of that great Empire, does not affect

the peace of the world and therefore come properly within the jurisdiction of the league?

“Any matter affecting the peace of the world” is a very broad statement which could be

made to justify almost any interference on the part of the league with the internal affairs

of other countries…. If Europe desires such an alliance or league with a power of this

kind, so be it. I have no objection provided they do not interfere with the American

Continents or force us against our will but bound by a moral obligation into all the

quarrels of Europe…. I object in the strongest possible way to having the United States

agree, directly or indirectly, to be controlled by a league which may at any time, and

perfectly 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 United States to be involved in any internal conflict 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….

… No doubt a great power impossible of coercion can cast aside a moral

obligation if it sees fit and escape from the performance of the duty which it promises.

The pathway of dishonor is always open. I for one, however, cannot conceive of voting

for a clause of which I disapprove because I know it can be escaped in that way.

Whatever the United States agrees to, by that agreement she must abide…

… The broad fact remains that if any member of the league suffering from

external aggression should appeal directly to the United States for support the United

States would be bound to give that support in its own capacity and without deference to

the action of other powers, because the United States itself is abound, and I hope the day

will never come when the United States will not carry out it’s promises. If that day

should come, and the United States or any other great country should refuse, no matter

how specious the reasons to fulfill both in letter and spirit every obligation in this

covenant, the United States would be dishonored and the league would crumble into dust,

leaving behind it a legacy of wars. If China should rise up and attack Japan in an effort to

undo the great wrong of the cession of the control of Shantung to that power, we should

be bound under the terms of article 10 to sustain Japan against China, and a guarantee of

that sort is never invoked except when the question has passed beyond the stage of

negotiation and has become a question for the application of force. I do not like the

prospect. It shall not come into existence by any vote of mine….

The Monroe doctrine was the corollary of Washington’s neutrality policy and of

his injunction against permanent alliances. It reiterates and reaffirms the principle. We do

not seek to meddle in the affaires of Europe and keep Europe out of the Americas. It is as

important to keep the United States out of European affairs as to keep Europe out of the

American Continents. Let us maintain the Monroe doctrine, then, in its entirety, and not

only preserve our own safety, but in this way best promote the real peace of the world.

Whenever the preservation of freedom and civilization and the overthrow of a menacing

world conqueror summon us we shall respond fully and nobly, as we did in 1917. He who

doubts that we should do so has little faith in America. But let it be our own act, and not

done reluctantly by the coercion of other nations, at the bidding or by the permission of

other countries….

…Once in the league the chance of amendment is so slight that it is not worth

considering. Any analysis of the provisions of this league covenant, however, brings to 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 powers, really by three, and it has

all the marks of an alliance. The development of international law is neglected. The court

which is to divide disputes brought before it fills but a small place. The conditions for

which this league really provides with the utmost care are political conditions, not

judicial questions, to be reached by the executive council and the assembly, purely

political bodies without any trace of a judicial character about them. Such being it’s

machinery, the control being in the hands of political appointees whose votes will be

controlled by interest and expediency, it exhibits that most marked characteristic of an

alliance- that its decisions are to be carried out by force. Those articles upon which the

whole structure rests are articles which provide for the use of force; that is, for war. This

league to enforce peace does a great deal for enforcement and very little for peace. It

makes more essential provisions looking to war than to peace for the settlement of

disputes.

…In article 11, again, the league is authorized to take any action which may be

necessary to safeguard the pace of the world. “Any action” includes war. We also have

specific provisions for a boycott, which is a form of economic warfare. The use of troops

might be avoided, but the enforcement of a boycott would require blockades in all

probability, and certainly a boycott in its essence is simply an effort to starve a people

into submission, to ruin their trade, and, in the case of nations which are not elf-

supporting, to cut off their food supply. The misery and suffering caused by such a

measure as this may easily rival that caused by actual war. Article 16 embodies the

boycott and also, in the last paragraph, provides explicitly for war. We are told that the

word “recommend” has no binding force; it constitutes a moral obligation: that is all. But

it means that if we, for example, should refuse to accept the recommendation we should

nullify the operation of article 16 and, to that extent, of the league. It seems to me that to

attempt to relieve us of clearly imposed duties by saying that the word “recommend” is

not binding is an escape of which no nation regarding the sanctity of treaties and its own

honor would care to avail itself. The provisions of article 16 are extended to States

outside the league that refuse to obey its command to come in and submit themselves to

its jurisdiction- another provision for war.

Taken altogether, these provisions for war present what to my mind is the gravest

objection to this league in its present for. We are told that of course nothing will be done

in the way of warlike acts without the assent of Congress. If that is true let us say so in

the covenant. But as it stands there is no 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. It must be

made perfectly clear that no American soldiers, not even a corporal’s guard, that no

American sailors, not even the crew of a submarine, can ever be engaged in a war or

ordered anywhere except by the constitutional authorities of the United States. To

Congress is granted by the Constitution the right to declare war, and nothing that would

take the troops out of the country at the bidding or demand of other nations should ever

be permitted except through Congressional action…. I believe that we do not require to

be told by foreign nations when we shall do work which freedom and civilization require.

I think we can move to victory much better under our own command than under the

command of others. Let us unite with the world to promote the peaceable settlement of all

international disputes Let us try to develop international law. Let us associate ourselves

with the other nations for these purposes. But let us retain in our own hands and in our

own control the lives of the youth of the land….

I am as anxious as any human being can be to have the United State render every

possible service to the civilization and the peace of mankind, but I am certain we can do

it best by not putting ourselves in leading strings or subjecting our policies and our

sovereignty to other nations. The independence of the United States is not only more

precious to ourselves but to the world than any single possession. Look at the United

States today. We have made mistake s in the past. We have had shortcomings. We shall

make mistakes in the future and fall short of our own best hopes. But nonetheless is there

any country today on the face of the earth which can compare with this in ordered liberty,

in peace, and in the largest freedom? I feel that I can say this without being accused of

undue boastfulness, for it is the simple fact. And in making this treaty and taking on these

obligations all that we do is in a spirit of unselfishness and in a desire for the good of

mankind. But it is well to remember that we are dealing with nations every one of which

has a direct individual interest to serve, and there is grave danger in an unshared idealism.

... 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 to 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 continue 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 that, if we can

attain to it, would largely benefit mankind. We would have our country 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 exhausted, or her moral force abated, by everlasting

meddling and muddling in every quarrel, great and small, which afflicts 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 greatest service to the world’s peace and to the welfare of

mankind.

(Prolonged applause in the galleries.)

John Sharp Williams (D-Miss.)

Strong supporter of Woodrow Wilson

MR.WILLIAMS: Mr. President [of the Senate], I take it for granted that there is not an

American in the world who will forget that he is an American. I take it for granted that

the spirit is as widespread in Mississippi as it is in Idaho….

The whole sum and substance reduced to its last analysis of all the Senator said

most eloquently is that he contends we have a right to be the judge in our own quarrels

ourselves….

There are two ways of keeping the peace of the world. One is by… council of the

civilized world, which we are trying to secure; the other is by the domination of one great

world power that shall make its will known to the entire world. That is what Prussia and

Germany attempted. At the bottom of the heart of the Senator from Idaho he seems to

have the same idea, except that he would not have Germany do it, but he would have us

do it. Of course, you can keep the peace of the world if you let one nation rule the world,

and rule it with such force and such power that nobody else dares defy her. At the bottom

of the Senator’s heart is that notion; but it is not a right notion; it is not just; it is not fair;

it is not civilized; it is not enlightened; it is not righteousness. You have no right in a

dispute between you and me to be the sole judge of the controversy; and America has no

right in a dispute between her and anybody else to be the sole judge of the controversy.

The only reason why hitherto a nation has been the sole judge in a controversy is because

it did not limit its own power to be so, if it thought it had the power. It is not less

barbarous for a nation than it is for you or for me to say: “We will admit nobody else to

stand in judgment: we will ourselves be the sole judge, the sole court, and the sole

executioner of our own decrees.”

If you are going to carry on this miserable mad world the way it has been carried

on for a long while, why, go ahead with it; but it must result after a while, if you are

going ahead that way, in one thing. It must result in the carrying out of the German idea

by somebody else and not by Germany. Somebody must conquer the world and rule it

and keep it in peace. If you want America to do it, all right, if you think you can, if you

think the game is worth the candle. I do not. I would infinitely rather that the “common

sense of most should hold fretful realms in awe.”

When the Senator comes and tells me about what failed to be done under the Holy

Alliance, with six despots gathered around the table, to agree upon things that they never

intended to carry out, it has nothing to do with what we are proposing here today. There

was only one of them that ever did intend to carry it out, and that was Alexander of

Russia, and he forced it upon the council. He was an idealist, a sentimentalist, a fine

fellow, except that later on he went all to pieces. But a democracy is not going to do that.

If you think we are the only democracy in the world, you are again mistaken. The

Government of England is more democratic than is our own. The voice of the people of

Great Britain is put upon the statute books within a few weeks after a general election and

the voice of ours may never be, and frequently has not been. France is as democratic as

are you and I. Italy is almost as much so. Belgium is very nearly as much so.

If you want to carry on this mad, barbaric, insane business of any nation getting

mad with another because a grand duke has been assassinated and declaring war, leading

to a war of all he world, why, go ahead with it. But God will not bless you in it; whatever

else you may say or do. I imagine that a different verb would suit the situation rather than

the verb “bless.”

The Senator from Idaho, under it all, is of the opinion that every man is in his

quarrel, that he would like to settle it for himself; but we have long since agreed, in the

interest of civilization, that we could not do that. It is better for a quarrel to be settled

wrong now and then than it is to have both parties to a quarrel; each one to settle it for

himself, the only upshot of which is that one must kill the other. So the Senator’s

philosophy, reduced to the ultimate analysis, is that, as between nations, each nation must

be its own judge, and, in the long run, must proceed to murder all the inhabitants of the

other nation. …

There is a higher enlightenment coming to this world than the Senator from Idaho

has thus far dreamt. It may not come now, but it will finally come. There will be a time

when no man will dare stand in any deliberative body and assert the doctrine which he

has just asserted, when no man will dare stand up and say for a nation what no man now

dare say for an individual, to wit, “ You must not touch the sovereignty of the nation in

the slightest degree, because unless each nation settles its controversy to suit itself it has

lost its self-respect.” Why, I do not lose my self-respect when I go to court with you or

you with me…

Mr. President, you may talk all you please, you may say what you choose to, you

may quote all the bad men and barbaric history that has ever been written-and there is lots

of it that is quotable in favor of the position that the Senator from Idaho has just taken-all

that is back there; all that is behind us so far is barbarism internationally; and we have go

to get away from it somehow, at some time, now or hereafter. You may argue all you

choose about it, but when you get through talking about it, it comes down to this: Are you

fair? Are you just? Are you generous? Or, on the other hand, do you insist that you shall

be the sole judge in you own quarrel? That is all; there is not anything else to it. Are you

fair? Are you just? Are you honest? Have you that sense of honor that makes you give

some consideration to the other man’s assertion of his right, or do you stand like a savage

and say, “I will be the sole judge of my own quarrel”? And when you say it as a citizen of

a country or undertake to make your country say it, you are none the less criminal as an

American. But you are a hundred million times more criminal than if you said it just for

yourself, because you are undertaking to say it for a hundred million people.

I should like to be the judge of my own quarrel always in a way. I believe I would

be generally right about it, and I reckon you think you would be, but that is not what

civilization has decreed for me or for you, and that is not what civilization ought to

decree for nations.

Oh, I wish the Senator from Idaho would think for just one minute about the men

and the women and the children of Belgium and Serbia and Poland and of France and

what this barbarism has led to: Murder, robbery, rape, and everything else in the world;

and why? Because of the absurd notion that every nation has to be the sole judge of its

own quarrel. And that it was lacking in honor and lacking in self-respect and lacking in

patriotism if anybody else was invoked to try and settle the controversy; that is all. Every

murdered man, every ravished woman and every robbed bank or robbed household in all

Europe today owes the guilty fact to the advocacy of the very theory that the Senator has

just been talking for. The whole thing would have been avoided if, upon the suggestion of

Earl Grey, Austria had been willing to leave it to arbitration. The whole thing would have

been avoided if, upon his further suggestion, she had even been willing to leave it to The

Hague court, or leave it to the concert of Europe; and Great Britain, France, Italy,

Germany, and Russia will meet and decide it. She refused all. Why? Not upon the plea, “I

am an American, and I must never forget it,” but upon the plea that, “I am an Austrian

and I must never forget that.” And Germany refused to interfere upon the plea that

Austria was Austria, that Germany was an ally of Austria, and that she could not even

consider a proposition of having Austria submit to arbitration a question of honor, as the

Kaiser called it. A question of honor- the killing of a grand duke! It amounted to no more

than the killing of anybody …

Mr. President, I have said upon this floor more than once in my time, I have

repeated the language of Thomas Jefferson, my passion is peace, and I am so fond of

peace that I will fight for it any day in the world whenever it is necessary or possible. My

family has fought for it, and will continue to do so. I am so fond of peace that I do not

believe that even my own country has the right to be the judge in its own quarrel, and to

avoid peace when peace can be brought about with self-respect….

If we can not appeal to the conscience of the civilized world to stop this miserable

barbarism of murder and rape and arson, this insanity that we call war, which now and

then, under the present system, the best people in the world must resort to, just as we did

this time, then where is the faith in God and the hope for enlightenment? What is the use

of living? What is the use of pretending to be civilized? If I have got to go out into the

world and fight for everything that I want and need and ought to have, and nobody is to

be a common judge of what is right and just between me and an antagonist, then what is

the use of all this structure that we have built about us-libraries, and school, and churches,

and dreams of poets, and visions of prophets, and the balance of it? Had we not better just

go back frankly and butcher one another whenever we feel like it?

Aristotle’s last words to Alexander were: “Remember that you are a Greek.” I

would hate to tell any American that the last word I had to say to him was: “Remember

that you are an American.” I would infinitely rather say to him: “Remember that you are

a human being and a creature of God and that, whether you are an American or not, you

must not set up to be the judge in your own quarrel. You must do justice; and, for fear

that you will not, you must try to organize some power that will do it, somewhere-your

own power, in which you have half say: fair arbitration.”…

Why, this American Union is a mere illustration, every star on that flag is a mere

illustration, of the general principle. New Jersey was ready to go to war with New York:

Rhode Island was holding out; North Carolina was saying that it could not come in

because of its sovereignty: and yet we came in, and we had peace within our borders and

interstate trade, guaranteed by a fair Federal arbitrate that we ourselves had erected. If

there is any pattern for a league of nations in the world today, it is the American

Republic, this Union of the indestructible States, still remaining States, but giving up a

certain degree of independence in order to accomplish a grander result.