Cole Robert

Mr. Ramirez
AP US History Period 5
12/17/2013
The years that house World War I can be considered major landmarks in
human history, due to the extreme levels of violence that had never before been
experienced on Earth. It comes as no surprise to me that men and women of the
time believed it was the "war to end all wars," because, in their eyes, there was no
possible way there could ever be a more horrific conflict. As was the norm following
battles, a plan was put in place to write up and sign a treaty that would hopefully
prevent similar hostilities from breaking out in the future. The proposed truce,
known as the Treaty of Versailles, was signed on June 28, 1919 by all the major
players of the war, with the exception of the United States. The President at the
time, Woodrow Wilson, was very opposed to the treaty, but decision to defeat the
Treaty was mostly based on the strength of the opposition forces.
At first, Wilson was excited to ratify the Treaty, as he hoped it would contain
many of his Fourteen Points as well as his League of Nations. He tries to use
patriotism to get the people of the United States on his side in his Appeal to the
Country on October 3, 1920, but his pleas are fairly weak and unconvincing. He
describes America as the light of the world as created to lead the world in the
assertion of the rights of peoples and the rights of free nations...This light the
opponents of the League might quench. Very eloquent, but unable to catch the
hearts and minds of the nation, and the weak put down of his opposition didnt help
much. Once the provisions of the Treaty were set, however, Wilson began to change
his mind, because he disagreed with many of the new points (and he may have
taken slight personal offense that his points had been discarded).
One example of Wilsons childlike behaviors is clearly noticed in the case of
Article X, a provision concerning the League of Nations that would require the U.S to
respect the territorial integrity of any other countries that had joined. Wilson
describes Article X in his 1919 speech as the inevitable, logical center of the whole
system of the Covenant of the League of Nations and becomes very stubborn when
there is concern and talk of doing away with the article. Men like Henry Cabot Lodge
did not like Article X because it could possibly require the country to join wars or
change its diplomacy, as well as conflicting with George Washingtons warning to
stay away from foreign affairs as best as possible. A contract that would directly tie
America to the countries of Europe completely contrasted the words of the most
beloved President. Lodge took matters into his own hands, using Wilsons stroke as
an opportunity to declare the United States exempt from Article X. Wilson told the
Democrats of the Senate to vote against ratifying the treaty until the reservations
made by Lodge were removed, choosing not to ratify the treaty at all, rather than
sign something he didnt fully agree with. Even Herbert Hoover was unhappy with
Wilsons stubbornness, writing to him in 1919 and pleading him to endorse the pact
before it was too late.
The famous writer W. E. B. DuBois was furious with the failure of the
President, which he documents well in his paper on the League of Nations (1921).

He describes the meeting to write up the Treaty as the most forward-looking event
of the century, and expresses his disappointment with Americas wish to singlehandedly dictate the terms of the world. DuBoiss description of how the United
States failed reminds me of a statement we might find in modern-day news, his
anger based on the idiotic way in which the stubbornness of Woodrow Wilson and
the political fortunes of the Republicans became involved which led to the U.S not
being represented in ratifying the Treaty.
Despite Wilsons clear ineptitude and childish stubbornness, the deciding
factor in the Senates choice to deny ratification of the Treaty of Versailles was the
strength of argument presented by the opposition forces. As reported by The New
Republic in May of 1919, there had been a worldwide hope that World War I would
end in peace which would moralize nationalism by releasing it from class bondage
and exclusive ambitions. The Treaty of Versailles does not even try to satisfy these
aspirations. This is right in line with the views of William Borah, who illustrates the
proposition as force to destroy force, conflict to prevent conflict, militarism to
destroy militarism, war to prevent war. Both of these sources have agreed that the
provisions outlined by the Treaty are hypocritical and possibly too harsh, especially
the points concerning Germanys punishment. By this I do not mean there was a
general feeling that Germany should not be held accountable for the part they
played, as well as face the consequences of losing the war, but rather that the
proposed punishments were so harsh as to possibly arouse German anger, as well a
thirst for revenge. The War Guilt Clause imposed a large debt upon Germany that
would no doubt cause resentment and discontent with the outcome of the war,
(which may have played a part in motivation during WWII) especially among those
who believed it was Serbia who was at fault. John Maynard Keys presents a very
cohesive argument in Economic Consequences of the Peace in which he writes The
policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of
millions of human beings, and depriving a whole nation of happiness should be
abhorrent and detestable- abhorrent and detestable, even if it were possible, even if
it enriched ourselves, even if it did not sow the decay of the whole civilized life of
Europe. He does a great job of putting a very negative spin on one of the most
debated points of the Treaty, and one that has a strong potential to cause future
harm.
Some of the staunchest adversaries towards the Treaty, most specifically the
League of Nations, were the Irreconcilables led by the aforementioned Senator
William Borah. This group of 16 men vehemently opposed the League by any means
at their disposal, on any grounds available. They highlighted the dangers of
becoming too involved in foreign affairs, getting their point across to the common
people through the use of political cartoons such as the depiction of Uncle Sam
marrying Foreign Entanglements. In the scene the couple is being married by the
League of Nations, while the peace proceedings are tossed off to the side,
seemingly of lesser importance and the U. S Senate is bursting through window
carrying the Constitutional Rights, to state why the two may not lawfully marry. The
cartoon is a great depiction of the situation at hand, and helped many Americans
understand what was going on, giving them the ability to form their own opinions.
Jane Addams, well known for her social work and settlement of the Hull House,
writes that the opinions were divided among the Womens Peace Party, although
there was never any doubt that an adequate international organization was
necessary, it was just undecided whether the League could fulfill the need. The

backing of Americans, as well as a rise in the strength of congressional authority

provides the opportunity for the Senate to completely reject the Treaty, which
results in the United States failure to sign and inevitably weakens the League of
Nation.
The United States refusal to sign the Treaty of Versailles deals a huge blow to
the strength behind the pact, as well as crippling the League of Nations. However,
the other powers support of the reparations may have helped lay a base that
German anger and resentment built off of, leading towards the Second World War.
Woodrow Wilson provided a powerful push against signing the Treaty with his
stubbornness and inept, childlike behavior, but it was ultimately the other forces
that opposed the treaty that were able to keep the U.S signature out of history.