The United States Since the Civil War

by Charles Ramsdell Lingley

The course of the Treaty in the Senate was such as to stimulate any friction which might result from the difficult process of reconstruction. Despite the early sentiment favorable to prompt ratification, that part of the Treaty which related to a League of Nations met a variety of opposing forces. Some of them were based on personal, political and partisan considerations, and some of them founded upon a sincere hesitancy about adventuring into new and untried fields of international effort. In the main, party lines were somewhat strictly drawn in the Senate, the Democrats favoring and the Republicans opposing ratification of the treaty as it stood.[12] All debates in the Senate relating to the treaty were for the first time in our history open to the public, and popular interest was keen and sustained. Among people outside of Congress party lines were more commonly broken than in the Senate, and members of that body were deluged with petitions and correspondence for and against ratification. At length it appeared that a considerable fraction of the Senate desired ratification without any change whatever, a smaller number desired absolute rejection and a "middle group" wished ratification with certain reservations which would interpret or possibly amend portions of the plan for a League of Nations—portions which they felt were vague or dangerous to American interests. After long-continued discussion, the friends of the project were unable to muster the necessary two-thirds for ratification, and its enemies failed to obtain the majority required to make amendments, and the entire matter was accordingly postponed, pending the results of the presidential election of 1920.

The United States, therefore, found itself after the close of the World War in much the same position that it had been in more than half a century earlier at the end of the Civil War. The unity of purpose and the devotion to ideals which had overcome all difficulties during the combat had seemingly, at least, given way to partisan diversity of endeavor, to strife for supremacy in government and to the avoidance of the great problems of reconstruction. Time, patience and controversy would be necessary to bring about a wise settlement. The United States was face to face with the greatest problems that had arisen since the Civil War.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The opposition to the Wilson foreign policy is best expressed in Theodore Roosevelt, Fear God and Take Your Own Part (1916). Roosevelt's condonation of the invasion of Belgium is in The Outlook (Sept., 1914), "The World War." Wilson's changing attitude toward the war is explained in A.M. Low, Woodrow Wilson, an Interpretation (1918), but is best followed in his addresses and messages. The early stages of the war and American interest in it are described in Ogg; The American Year Book; J.B. McMaster, The United States in the World War (1918); J.W. Gerard, My Four Years in Germany (1918), superficial but interesting and written by the American Ambassador; Brand Whitlock, Belgium (2 vols., 1919), verbose, but well written by the United States minister to Belgium; Dodd, already mentioned; J.S. Bassett, Our War with Germany (1919), written in excellent spirit. The President's address calling for a declaration of war is contained in the various editions of his addresses, and in War Information Series, No. 1, "The War Message and Pacts Behind It," published by the Committee on Public Information.

The subject of federal agencies for the prosecution of the war is fully discussed in W.F. Willoughby, Government Organization in War Time and After (1919); there is no adequate account of the Committee on Public Information. On the government and the railroads, consult F.H. Dixon in Quarterly Journal of Economics (Aug., 1919), "Federal Operation of Railroads during the War." E.L. Bogart, Direct and Indirect Costs of the Great World War (1918), is useful.

Combat operations are described in the general histories of the war already mentioned, and in "Report of General Pershing" in War Department, Annual Report, 1918.

Accounts of the Peace Conference, the Treaty and the League of Nations labor under the attempt to prove President Wilson right or wrong, in addition to such insurmountable difficulties as lack of information and perspective. J.S. Bassett, Our War with Germany (1919), has some temperate chapters; Dodd is friendly to Wilson, but not offensively partisan; R.S. Baker, What Wilson did at Paris (1919) is readable; J.M. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920), is interesting and designed to prove a point; see also C.H. Haskins and R.H. Lord, Some Problems of the Peace Conference (1920); the account in the American Year Book for 1919 lacks something of its usual non-partisan balance. On the League of Nations a thorough study is S.P.H. Duggan, The League of Nations (1919). Material opposing the treaty may be found in The New Republic, The Nation, and the North American Review; favorable to it is the editorial page of the New York Times, whose columns contain the best day-to-day accounts of the debates in the Senate.

A full bibliography is A.E. McKinley (ed.), Collected Materials for the
Study of the War (1918).

* * * * *

[1] As a result of this incident the Senate decided to limit somewhat its rule allowing unlimited debate. Under the "closure" rule adopted March 8, 1917, a two-thirds majority may limit discussion on any measure to one hour for each member.