The Treaty for the League of Nations

In 1919, after a devastating and traumatizing World War, world leaders sought to guarantee such a horrendous war would never occur again. Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, proposed a visionary and optimistic solution to the world’s problems, embodied in the creation of a world government to be called The League of Nations. The world clung to Wilson’s promise of everlasting peace yet when the time came for the United States to join the League and thus provide it with credibility and power, the United States Congress refused to ratify the treaty for the League of Nations. Ratification of the treaty for the League of Nations failed in the United States Congress because of partisan politics, threats to legislative power, and President Wilson's refusal to compromise.

On the issue over ratification of the treaty for the League of Nations, as on most issues of congress, partisan politics were crucial in determining outcomes. Wilson was a Democratic president, supporters for the treaty would be Democrats and opponents would be Republicans. The 66th Senate was the first Republican after several years of Democratic rule. In addition, Wilson was on his sixth year a president; not surprisingly, republicans were eager to oppose Wilson and the Democrats. Famed American historian C. H. F. Bell writes in his book “Woodrow Wilson and the People, "For reasons differing in validity, the Republicans, from 1918 to 1920, were eager to reject Wilson and his party on any plausible pretext." Partisanship on the issue of ratification became inventible with the ascension of Cabot Lodge to majority leader of the senate. Wilsonian era historian John Cooper explains, "when the 1918 congressional elections transferred control of the senate from the democrats to the republicans, (Cabot) Lodge became both majority leader and foreign relations committee chairman." Thus, it became clear that the treaty would encounter great opposition in the Senate under the leadership of Cabot Lodge. In addition, C. H. F. Bell points out that Cabot lodge was Wilson greatest political adversary and used his new attained power to guarantee failure of the treaty. Bell contends that Senator Lodge's motto was "my party right or wrong" and he "detested Wilson from the bottom of his soul" . Inarguably such an extreme partisan leading republicans culminated in greater partisanship during debate and voting over ratification. Further fermenting the fact that party politics were, to a great extent, to blame for the failure of the treaty are historian’s Ralph Stone’s accounts in is book The Irreconcilables: The Fight Against the League of Nations, "the solid core of his antagonists was simply partisan" This "solid core”, he explains, contained 16 irreconcilables of which 15 were republican. Stone, who has covered the group’s opposition to the league in greater depth than any other historian, adds: "Their success depended, of course, on Lodge's ability to hold his party together. But their own ability to exploit Lodge's obsessive concern for party unity by threats to bolt either the party or his leadership gave them more power than they otherwise would have wielded." This provides further evidence demonstrating that for Lodge party politics were in fact the essence of his political strategy. Because winning over republicans was necessary in order to achieve a two thirds majority, in 1919 Wilson toured the country promoting giving speeches to promote ratification. However, as Hebert Hoover, 31st president of the United States, argues in his book The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson, "Senate would vote along party lines regardless of public opinion" Cabot Lodge had guaranteed republicans would stay loyal to their party. On November 19, 1919 the foreign relations committee under Lodge proposed fourteen amendments on that same day the whole of congress voted on the treaty with the Lodge reservations, they treaty was not ratified due Wilson followers who were prompted by the president to reject any alteration to the treaty. A subsequent vote for the treaty without reservations was held and this was too failed 38 in support and 53 against it. Of the 53 votes against 47 were republican. In conclusion, partisan politics were pivotal in determining the fate of the League of Nations treaty in the US congress.

The greatest issue raised in the debate for ratification was article 10 of the covenant of the League of Nations which stated "The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.” This article sparked debate over congress's ability to declare war and was a key argument utilized by league opposition. The United States Constitution gives explicit right to congress in declaring war. Under membership in the League of Nations, in cases of external aggression of a League member, the Council of the league would determine deployment of troop or "advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled". The use of the American military without the consent of Congress seemed preposterous to many congressmen as it was in direct violation of the Constitution. In addition, taking away this explicit right would greatly limit legislative power vis a vis executive power. Thus in a sense the treaty called for an alteration in the meticulously planned checks and balances system created by the founder fathers. Furthermore, Cabot Lodge argued for American autonomy in issues concerning military use. In his own words, quoted by historian Arthur S. Link, leading historian on Woodrow Wilson, "the US should only interfere when it has personal strategic interests in a conflict, not when it is obliged to do so by the council." Senator William E. Borah’s, an influential irreconcilable from Idaho, was a powerful orator and staunch defender of Legislative power. The following excerpt from his impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate captures the essence of the issue of ebbing legislative power under the treaty. “We have said, Mr. President, that we would not send our troops abroad without the consent of Congress. Pass by now for a moment the legal proposition. If we create executive functions, the Executive will perform those functions without the authority of Congress. Pass that question by and go to the other question. Our members of the council are there. Our members of the assembly are there. Article 11 is complete, and it authorizes the league, a member of which