No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Leadership of the United States in the Postwar World*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
It is now more than one hundred years since the substance of the Connally Resolution was first adopted by a legislative body in the United States; it is almost fifty years since the United States, at the Hague Conferences, took the lead in pressing for an international court with much more power than the Court we have since failed to join; it is about thirty-five years since Congress itself, by a unanimous vote in both houses, adopted a resolution urging that the United States Navy be combined with other navies into an international police force for the preservation of peace; it is not quite thirty years ago that the political parties, without any of the present hullabaloo on the point, and at a time when the United States was not itself at war, achieved such a unity of position in their stand for effective American participation in world order as to make debate between them on that issue virtually nil; and it is not quite thirty years ago that the man soon to become the Republican leader in the Senate joined from the same platform with the Democratic President in an appeal for a League of Nations, and a League with force, both economic and military, at its command.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1944
References
1 Resolution adopted by Massachusetts state senate in 1832 (by vote of 19 to 5), and by both houses of the Massachusetts legislature in 1837, denouncing war, urging the substitution of machinery for peaceful settlement of disputes, approving a congress or court of nations as the best practicable method of peaceful settlement, and recommending that the President negotiate with other governments to secure such an institution. Seven other state legislatures adopted similar resolutions during the next fifteen years.
2 The American delegates to the First Hague Conference, in 1899, proposed an international court, with compulsory jurisdiction, and otherwise, as the delegates explained in their report, similar to the U. S. Supreme Court. See full text of the plan in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1907, Pt. 2, pp. 1143–1144.
3 The so-called Bennett-Lodge Joint Resolution of June 25, 1910 (presented to the Senate by Senator Lodge). Cong. Rec., Vol. 45, Pt. 8, pp. 8545–8548, 8874 (61st Cong., 2nd Sess.); 36 Stats. 885.
4 See analysis of the platforms and campaign of 1916, in Berdahl, , The Policy of the United States with Respect to the League of Nations, pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
5 Speech of Senator Lodge before the League to Enforce Peace, May 27, 1916. Lodge, , The Senate and the League of Nations, pp. 131–132Google Scholar; Enforced Peace (Proceedceedings of the First Annual Assemblage of the League to Enforce Peace, May 26–27, 1916), pp. 164–166.
6 ProfessorChafee, Zechariah, quoted in The American Scholar, Vol. 11, p. 383 (Summer, 1942).Google Scholar
7 Address of Secretary Stimson at Pittsburgh, Oct. 26, 1932 (N. Y. Times, Oct. 27, 1932, p. 4); and reply of Secretary Hull to Secretary General Drummond, accepting invitation to the U. S. to sit on the League of Nations Assembly's Far Eastern Advisory Committee (ibid., Mar. 15, 1933, p. 12).
The other point of view was expressed by the Chicago Tribune (in an editorial in 1928, “The Virtue of Minding Our Own Business”): “The professors agree that peace is a desirable thing and we assure them it is just as desirable for the American people as for any other. The United States has been granted the most favorable terms for minding its own business. The responsibility of the American government in keeping other nations at peace is rather less than its responsibility in keeping the American people out of war.”
8 See my article, “Myths about the Peace Treaties of 1919–1920,” in The American Scholar, Vol. 11, pp. 261–274 (Summer, 1942); reprinted in Int. Conciliation, No. 383 (Oct., 1942).
9 Statement issued Sept. 30, 1932, in connection with the Disarmament Conference. State Department Press Releases, Sept. 24, 1932, p. 183.
10 At the League of Nations Conference on Concerted Economic Action, the list of delegations and observers was followed by this footnote explanation: “In addition to the Delegations and Observers, Mr. Edwin C. Wilson, First Secretary attached to the American Embassy in Paris, has been instructed by the United States Government to be present in Geneva for the duration of the Conference and to associate himself with the American Consulate at Geneva with a view to obtaining information regarding the developments of the Conference.” Proceedings of the Preliminary Conference with a view to Concerted Economic Action (Geneva, Feb. 17-Mar. 24, 1930) (C. 222. M. 109. 1930. II.), p. 69, n. 1.
11 Similarly, Miss Grace Abbott, attending the League's Advisory Committee on Traffic in Women and Children in 1923 as the first representative of the United States, not only took active part in the discussions, but submitted proposals and even voted, although describing herself as a “consultative” member. Minutes of Advisory Committee on Traffic in Women and Children, 2nd Session, Mar. 22–27 1923 (C. 225. M. 129. 1923. IV.), esp. pp. 26, 31.
12 See my articles, “Relations of the United States with the Council of the League of Nations,” in this Review, Vol. 26, pp. 503–526 (June, 1932); and “American Foreign Policy,” Amer. Jour. Sociol., Vol. 38, esp. pp. 847–849 (May, 1933).
13 Memorandum on World Settlement after the War (prepared for the League of Nations Union, Sept., 1940), in Viscount Cecil, A Great Experiment, App. III, pp. 367–368.Google Scholar
14 See Mandate for Palestine (State Department Publication, 1927), esp. pp. 49–50 (Memo. of American Embassy to British Foreign Office, Aug. 24, 1921).
15 See, for example, the respective columns of Lippmann, Walter and Welles, Sumner in Chicago Sun, Jan. 10 and 12, 1944.Google Scholar
16 N. Y. Times, Jan 1, 1944, p. 12.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.