THE SENATE AND THE TREATY
Neither President Wilson nor those who had been working with him at Paris
seriously feared that, after securing the point of chief importance to
him at the Conference, he would fail to win support for the League of
Nations and the treaty at home. They recognized, of course, that his
political opponents in the Senate would not acquiesce without a struggle.
The Republicans were now in the majority, and Henry Cabot Lodge, the new
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, had gone far in his
efforts to undermine Wilson's policy at Paris. He had encouraged the
Italians in their imperialistic designs in the Adriatic and had done his
best to discredit the League of Nations. Former Progressive Senators,
such as Johnson and Borah, who like Lodge made personal hostility to
Wilson the chief plank in their political programme, had declared
vigorously their determination to prevent the entrance of the United
States into a League. The Senators as a whole were not well-informed upon
foreign conditions and Wilson had done nothing to enlighten them. He had
not asked their advice in the formulation of his policy, nor had he
supplied them with the facts that justified the position he had taken.
Naturally their attitude was not likely to be friendly, now that he
returned to request their consent to the treaty, and the approach of a
presidential election was bound to affect the action of all ardent
partisans.
Opposition was also to be expected in the country. There was always the
ancient prejudice against participation in European affairs, which had not
been broken even by the events of the past two years. The people, even
more than the Senate, were ignorant of foreign conditions and failed to
understand the character of the obligations which the nation would assume
under the treaty and the covenant of the League. There was genuine fear
lest the United States should become involved in wars and squabbles in
which it had no material interest, and lest it should surrender its
independence of action to a council of foreign powers. This was
accompanied by the belief that an irresponsible President might commit the
country to an adventurous course of action which could not be controlled
by Congress. The chief opposition to the treaty and covenant, however,
probably resulted from the personal dislike of Wilson. This feeling, which
had always been virulent along the Atlantic coast and in the industrial
centers of the Middle West, had been intensified by the President's
apparent disregard of Congress. More than one man of business argued that
the treaty must be bad because it was Wilson's work and the covenant worst
of all, since it was his pet scheme. One heard daily in the clubs and on
the golf-courses of New England and the Middle Atlantic States the remark:
"I know little about the treaty, but I know Wilson, and I know he must be
wrong."
And yet the game was probably in the President's hands, had he known how
to play it. Divided as it was on the question of personal devotion to
Wilson, the country was a unit in its desire for immediate peace and
normal conditions. Admitting the imperfections of the treaty, it was
probably the best that could be secured in view of the conflicting
interests of the thirty-one signatory powers, and at least it would bring
peace at once. To cast it aside meant long delays and prolongation of the
economic crisis. The covenant of the League might not be entirely
satisfactory, but something must be done to prevent war in the future;
and if this League proved unsatisfactory, it could be amended after
trial. Even the opposing Senators did not believe that they could defeat
the treaty outright. They were warned by Republican financiers, who
understood international economic conditions, that the safety and
prosperity of the world demanded ratification, and that the United States
could not afford to assume an attitude of isolation even if it were
possible. Broad-minded statesmen who were able to dissociate partisan
emotion from intellectual judgment, such as ex-President Taft, agreed
that the treaty should be ratified as promptly as possible. All that
Senator Lodge and his associates really hoped for was to incorporate
reservations which would guarantee the independence of American action
and incidentally make it impossible for the President to claim all the
credit for the peace.
Had the President proved capable of coöperating with the moderate
Republican Senators it would probably have been possible for him to have
saved the fruits of his labor at Paris. An important group honestly
believed that the language of the covenant was ambiguous in certain
respects, particularly as regards the extent of sovereignty sacrificed
by the national government to the League, and the diminution of
congressional powers. This group was anxious to insert reservations
making plain the right of Congress alone to declare war, defining more
exactly the right of the United States to interpret the Monroe Doctrine,
and specifying what was meant by domestic questions that should be exempt
from the cognizance of the League. Had Wilson at once combined with this
group and agreed to the suggested reservations, he would in all
probability have been able to secure the two-thirds vote necessary to
ratification. The country would have been satisfied; the Republicans
might have contended that they had "Americanized" the treaty; and the
reservations would probably have been accepted by the co-signatories. It
would have been humiliating to go back to the Allies asking special
privileges, but Europe needed American assistance too much to fail to
heed these demands. After all America had gained nothing in the way of
territorial advantage from the war and was asking for nothing in the way
of reparations.
It was at this crucial moment that Wilson's peculiar temperamental faults
asserted themselves. Sorely he needed the sane advice of Colonel House,
who would doubtless have found ways of placating the opposition. But that
practical statesman was in London and the President lacked the capacity
to arrange the compromise that House approved.
President Wilson alone either would not or could not negotiate
successfully with the middle group of Republicans. He went so far as to
initiate private conferences with various Senators, a step indicating his
desire to avoid the appearance of the dictatorship of which he was
accused; but his attitude on reservations that altered the meaning of any
portion of the treaty or covenant was unyielding, and he even insisted
that merely interpretative reservations should not be embodied in the
text of the ratifying resolution. The President evidently hoped that the
pressure of public opinion would compel the Senate to yield to the demand
for immediate peace and for guarantees against future war. His appearance
of rigidity, however, played into the hands of the opponents of the
treaty, who dominated the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate.
Senator Lodge, chairman of the committee, adopted a stand which, to the
Administration at least, did not seem to be justified by anything but a
desire to discredit the work of Wilson. He had, in the previous year,
warmly advocated a League of Nations, but in the spring of 1919 he had
given the impression that he would oppose any League for which Wilson
stood sponsor. Thus he had raised objections to the preliminary draft of
the covenant which Wilson brought from Paris in February; but when Wilson
persuaded the Allies to incorporate some of the amendments then demanded
by Republican Senators, he at once found new objections. He did not dare
attack the League as a principle, in view of the uncertainty of public
opinion on the issue; but he obviously rejoiced in the President's
inability to unite the Democrats with the middle-ground Republicans, for
whom Senator McCumber stood as spokesman.
On the 19th of August a conference was held at the White House, in which
the President attempted to explain to the Foreign Relations Committee
doubtful points and to give the reasons for various aspects of the
settlement. A careful study of the stenographic report indicates that his
answers to the questions of the Republican Senators were frank, and that
he was endeavoring to remove the unfortunate effects of his former
distant attitude. His manner, however, had in it something of the
schoolmaster, and the conference was fruitless. Problems which had been
studied for months by experts of all the Powers, and to the solution of
which had been devoted long weeks of intelligent discussion, were now
passed upon superficially by men whose ignorance of foreign questions was
only too evident, and who barely concealed their determination to nullify
everything approved by the President. Hence, when the report of the
committee was finally presented on the 10th of September, the Republican
majority demanded no less than thirty-eight amendments and four
reservations. A quarter of the report was not concerned at all with the
subject under discussion, but was devoted to an attack upon Wilson's
autocratic methods and his treatment of the Senate. As was pointed out by
Senator McCumber, the single Republican who dissented from the majority
report, "not one word is said, not a single allusion made, concerning
either the great purposes of the League of Nations or the methods by
which these purposes are to be accomplished. Irony and sarcasm have been
substituted for argument and positions taken by the press or individuals
outside the Senate seem to command more attention than the treaty
itself."
The President did not receive the popular support which he expected, and
the burst of popular wrath which he believed would overwhelm senatorial
opposition was not forthcoming. In truth public opinion was confused.
America was not educated to understand the issues at stake. Wilson's
purposes at Paris had not been well reported in the press, and he himself
had failed to make plain the meaning of his policy. It was easy for
opponents of the treaty to muddy discussion and to arouse emotion where
reason was desirable. The wildest statements were made as to the effect of
the covenant, such as that entrance into the League would at once involve
the United States in war, and that Wilson was sacrificing the interests of
America to the selfish desires of European states. The same men who, a
year before, had complained that Wilson was opposing England and France,
now insisted that he had sold the United States to those nations. They
invented the catchword of "one hundred per cent Americanism," the test of
which was to be opposition to the treaty. They found strange coadjutors.
The German-Americans, suppressed during the war, now dared to emerge,
hoping to save the Fatherland from the effects of defeat by preventing the
ratification of the treaty; the politically active Irish found opportunity
to fulminate against British imperialism and "tyranny" which they
declared had been sanctioned by the treaty; impractical liberals, who were
disappointed because Wilson had not inaugurated the social millennium,
joined hands with out-and-out reactionaries. But the most discouraging
aspect of the situation was that so many persons permitted their judgment
to be clouded by their dislike of the President's personality. However
much they might disapprove the tactics of Senator Lodge they could not but
sympathize to some extent with the Senate's desire to maintain its
independence, which they believed had been assailed by Wilson. Discussions
which began with the merits of the League of Nations almost invariably
culminated with vitriolic attacks upon the character of Woodrow Wilson.
In the hope of arousing the country to a clear demand for immediate peace
based upon the Paris settlement, Wilson decided to carry out the plan
formulated some weeks previous and deliver a series of speeches from the
Middle West to the Pacific coast. He set forth on the 3d of September and
made more than thirty speeches. He was closely followed by some of his
fiercest opponents. Senators Johnson and Borah, members of the Foreign
Relations Committee, who might have been expected to remain in Washington
to assist in the consideration of the treaty by the Senate, followed in
Wilson's wake, attempting to counteract the effect of his addresses, and
incidentally distorting many of the treaty's provisions, which it is
charitable to assume they did not comprehend. The impression produced by
the President was varied, depending largely upon the political character
of his audience. East of the Mississippi he was received with comparative
coolness, but as he approached the coast enthusiasm became high, and at
Seattle and Los Angeles he received notable ovations. And yet in these
hours of triumph as in the previous moments of discouragement, farther
east, he must have felt that the issues were not clear. The struggle was
no longer one for a new international order that would ensure peace, so
much as a personal conflict between Lodge and Wilson. Whether the
President were applauded or anathematized, the personal note was always
present.
It was evident, during the tour, that the nervous strain was telling upon
Wilson. He had been worn seriously by his exertions in Paris, where he
was described by a foreign plenipotentiary as the hardest worker in the
Conference. The brief voyage home, which was purposely lengthened to give
him better chance of recuperation, proved insufficient. Forced to resume
the struggle at the moment when he thought victory was his, repudiated
where he expected to find appreciation, the tour proved to be beyond his
physical and nervous strength. At Pueblo, Colorado, on the 25th of
September, he broke down and returned hastily to Washington. Shortly
afterwards the President's condition became so serious that his
physicians forbade all political conferences, insisting upon a period of
complete seclusion and rest, which was destined to continue for many
months.
Thus at the moment of extreme crisis in the fortunes of the treaty its
chief protagonist was removed from the scene of action and the Democratic
forces fighting for ratification were deprived of effective leadership.
Had there been a real leader in the Senate who could carry on the fight
with vigor and finesse, the treaty might even then have been saved; but
Wilson's system had permitted no understudies. There was no one to lead
and no one to negotiate a compromise. From his sick-room, where his
natural obstinacy seemed to be intensified by his illness, the President
still refused to consider any reservations except of a purely
interpretative character, and the middle-ground Republicans would not
vote to ratify without "mild reservations," some of which seemed to him
more than interpretative.
Senatorial forces were roughly divided into four groups. There were the
"bitter-enders," typified by Johnson, Borah, and Brandegee, who frankly
wanted to defeat the treaty and the League outright; there were the
"reservationists," most of whom, like Lodge, wanted the same but did not
dare say so openly; there were the "mild reservationists," most of whom
were Republicans, who sincerely desired immediate peace and asked for no
important changes in the treaty; and finally there were those who desired
to ratify the treaty as it stood. The last-named group, made up of
Democrats, numbered from forty-one to forty-four, and obviously needed
the assistance of the "mild reservationists," if they were to secure a
two-thirds vote of the Senate. During October, all the amendments which
the Foreign Relations Committee brought forward were defeated through the
combination of the last two groups. Early in November, however, fourteen
reservations were adopted, the "mild reservationists" voting with Senator
Lodge, for lack of any basis of compromise with the Democrats. The effect
of these reservations would, undoubtedly, have been to release the
United States from many of the obligations assumed by other members,
while assuring to it the benefits of the League. The most serious of the
reservations was that concerned with Article X of the covenant, which
stated that the United States would assume no obligations to preserve the
territorial integrity or political independence of any other country, or
to interfere in controversies between nations, unless in any particular
case Congress should so provide. From the moment when Wilson first
developed his policy of international service, coöperative interference
in order to prevent acts of aggression by a strong against a weaker power
had been the chief point in his programme. It was contained in his early
Pan-American policy; it ran through his speeches in the campaign of 1916;
it was in the Fourteen Points. It was his specific contribution to the
covenant in Paris. Article X was the one point in the covenant which
Wilson would not consent to modify or, as he expressed it, see
"nullified." Just because it lay nearest Wilson's heart, it was the
article against which the most virulent attacks of the "die-hards" were
directed.
The President denounced the reservation on Article X, as a "knife-thrust
at the heart of the covenant," and its inclusion in the ratifying
resolution of the Senate, spelled the defeat of ratification. On the eve
of voting he wrote to Senator Hitchcock, leader of the Democratic forces
in the Senate, "I assume that the Senators only desire my judgment upon
the all-important question of the resolution containing the many
reservations of Senator Lodge. On that I cannot hesitate, for, in my
opinion, the resolution in that form does not provide for ratification
but rather for nullification of the treaty. I sincerely hope that the
friends and supporters of the treaty will vote against the Lodge
resolution of ratification." The "mild reservationists" led by McCumber
voted with the Lodge group for the resolution; but the "bitter-enders,"
combining with the supporters of the original treaty, outnumbered them.
The vote stood thirty-nine in favor of the resolution and fifty-five
against. When a motion for unconditional ratification was offered by
Senator Underwood, it was defeated by a vote of fifty-three to
thirty-eight.
The Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee had succeeded far
beyond the hopes of their leaders in August. They had killed the treaty,
but in such an indirect fashion as to confuse the public and to fix upon
the President the blame for delaying the peace. It was easy to picture
the obstinacy of the President as the root of all the evil which
resulted from the political and economic uncertainty overhanging our
European relations. So widespread was this feeling among his natural
opponents, that the Republican Senators began to assume a far loftier
tone, and to laugh at the tardy efforts of the Democrats to arrange a
compromise. When Senator Pomerene, after consultation with Administration
leaders, proposed the appointment of a "committee of conciliation," to
find a basis of ratification that would secure the necessary two-thirds
vote, the motion was killed by forty-eight to forty-two. Senator Lodge
announced that he would support the resolution suggested by Knox, which
would end the war by congressional resolution and thus compel Wilson to
negotiate a separate treaty of peace with Germany.
Intelligent public opinion, however, was anxious that the quarrels of the
President and the Senate should not be allowed to delay the
settlement[15]. Rightly or wrongly the people felt that the struggle was
largely a personal one between Lodge and Wilson, and insisted that each
must yield something of their contention. On the one hand, ex-President
Taft and others of the more far-seeing Republicans worked anxiously for
compromise, with the assistance of such men as Hoover, who perceived the
necessity of a League, but who were willing to sacrifice its efficiency
to some extent, if only the United States could be brought in. On the
other hand, various Democrats who were less directly under Wilson's
influence wanted to meet these friends of the League half-way. During
December and January unofficial conferences between the senatorial groups
took place and progress towards a settlement seemed likely. The
Republicans agreed to soften the language of their minor reservations,
and Wilson even intimated that he would consent to a mild reservation on
Article X, although as he later wrote to Hitchcock, he felt strongly that
any reservation or resolution stating that the "United States assumes no
obligation under such and such an article unless or except, would chill
our relationship with the nations with whom we expect to be associated in
this great enterprise of maintaining the world's peace." It was
important "not to create the impression that we are trying to escape
obligations."
[Footnote 15: A straw vote taken in 311 colleges and including 158,000
students and professors showed an inclination to favor Wilson rather than
Lodge, but the greatest number approved compromise: four per cent favored
a new treaty with Germany; eight per cent favored killing the Versailles
treaty; only seventeen per cent approved the Lodge programme; thirty per
cent approved ratification of the treaty without change; and thirty-eight
per cent favored compromise.]
On the 31st of January the country was startled by the publication of a
letter written by Viscount Grey, who had been appointed British Ambassador
to the United States, but who had returned to England after a four months'
stay, during which he had been unable to secure an interview with the sick
President. In this letter he attempted to explain to the British the
causes of American hesitancy to accept the League. He then went on to
state that the success of the League depended upon the adherence of the
United States, and while admitting the serious character of the
reservations proposed by Senator Lodge, insisted that American coöperation
ought not to be refused because conditions were attached. His views were
unofficial, but it seemed clear that they were approved by the British
Cabinet, and they received a chorus of endorsement from the French and
British press.
The publication of Grey's letter opened a path to peace to both Senate
and President had they been willing to follow it. The Senate, by very
slight verbal softening of the language of its reservations, the
President by taking the British Ambassador at his word, might have
reached an agreement. The Lodge group, however, which had shown some
indications of a desire for compromise, was threatened by the "die-hards"
who were determined to defeat the treaty; fearing beyond everything to
break party unity, Lodge finally refused to alter the language of the
strong reservation on Article X, which stated that the United States
would assume no obligation to preserve the independence of other nations
by military force or the use of its resources or any form of economic
discrimination, unless Congress should first so provide. Inasmuch as the
economic outlawry of the offending state was the means which Wilson
chiefly counted upon, the reservation took all practical significance
from Article X, since the delays resulting from congressional
deliberation would prevent effective action. The President, possibly
believing that imperialist elements abroad were not sorry to see Article
X nullified, refused to accept the resolution of ratification so long as
it contained this reservation. "The imperialist," he wrote, "wants no
League of Nations, but if, in response to the universal cry of masses
everywhere, there is to be one, he is interested to secure one suited to
his own purposes, one that will permit him to continue the historic game
of pawns and peoples--the juggling of provinces, the old balance of
power, and the inevitable wars attendant upon these things. The
reservation proposed would perpetuate the old order. Does any one really
want to see the old game played again? Can any one really venture to take
part in reviving the old order? The enemies of a League of Nations have
by every true instinct centered their efforts against Article X, for it
is undoubtedly the foundation of the whole structure. It is the bulwark,
and the only bulwark of the rising democracy of the world against the
forces of imperialism and reaction."
The deadlock was complete, and on March 19, 1920, when the vote on
ratification was taken, the necessary two-thirds were lacking by seven
votes. At the last moment a number of Democrats joined with the
Republican reservationists, making fifty-seven in favor of ratification.
On the other hand the bitter-end Republicans voted against it with the
Democrats who stood by the President, thus throwing thirty-seven votes
against ratification. It had taken the Peace Conference five months to
construct the treaty with Germany in all its complexities, and secure the
unanimous approval of the delegates of thirty-one states. The Senate had
consumed more than eight months merely in criticizing the treaty and had
finally refused to ratify it.
We are, perhaps, too close to the event to attempt any apportionment of
responsibility for this failure to cap our military successes by a peace
which--when all has been said--was the nearest possible approach to the
ideal peace. It is clear that the blame is not entirely on one side.
Historians will doubtless level the indictment of ignorance and political
obliquity against the Senators who tried, either directly or indirectly,
to defeat the treaty; they will find much justification for their charge,
although it will be more difficult to determine the dividing line between
mere incapacity to appreciate the necessities of the world, and the
desire to discredit, at any cost, the work of Woodrow Wilson. On the
other hand, the President cannot escape blame, although the charge will
be merely that of tactical incapacity and mistaken judgment. His
inability to combine with the moderate Republican Senators first gave a
chance to those who wanted to defeat the treaty. His obstinate refusal to
accept reservations at the end, when it was clear that the treaty could
not be ratified without them, showed a regard for form, at the expense of
practical benefit. Granted that the reservations altered the character
of the League or the character of American participation in it, some sort
of a League was essential and the sooner the United States entered the
better it would be. Its success would not rest upon phrases, but upon the
spirit of the nations that composed it; the building-up of a new and
better international order would not be determined by this reservation or
that. Wilson's claim to high rank as a statesmen would probably be more
clear if he had accepted what was possible at the moment, in the hope
that the League would be improved as the country and the world became
better educated.