No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Several aspects of Woodrow Wilson's political thought recurred time and again in his academic writings, privately expressed opinions, official statements, and even in his actions. They formed the framework for much of his political life. One of these was his belief that, of all kinds of government, the best was that kind that was representative of and responsible to the people. Another was a concomitant of the first: a faith in the inherent ability of the people to know what was both right and good for them. Wilson also believed in the sanctity of contracts, in the duty of an honorable gentleman or an honorable government to keep pledges once made. There were, of course, many other facets of his political thought, but these three principles run like red threads through all of it. Like the tributaries of a mighty river, they converged early in 1920 to form the nucleus of one of Wilson's most daring — and tragic — plans of political action. They inspired his appeal for “a great and solemn referendum” on the League of Nations issue in the United States.
* Without wishing to burden him for his own errors of fact or interpretation, the author should like to thank Professor Samuel Flagg Bemis for his many helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
1 Wilson, Woodrow, Cabinet Government in the United States (Stamford, 1947), pp. 2–3Google Scholar. This was published originally in the International Review (August, 1879), then edited by Henry Cabot Lodge.
2 The Diary of Edward M. House, Yale University Library, February 7, 1919; hereinafter cited as the House Diary.
3 Wilson, , Cabinet Government, p. 29Google Scholar.
4 Ibid., p. 10.
5 Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics (Boston and New York, 1885), p. 95Google Scholar.
6 Ibid., p. 308.
7 Baker, Ray Stannard and Dodd, William E., editors, The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: College and State (New York and London, 1925), vol. I, p. 358Google Scholar; hereinafter cited as College and State.
8 House Diary, November 15, 1916. “At some future time I intend arguing this question out with him,” House continued; “he is interested in such matters, as indeed I am, and it was a joy to have the discussion.” These statements by Colonel House suggest a continuity in Wilson's thinking about the place of the cabinet and the role of the President in a representative democracy. For a somewhat different view, relying solely upon the published writings of Wilson and others, see Ranney, Austin, The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government (Urbana, 1962), pp. 39–42Google Scholar; and Wann, A. J., “The Development of Woodrow Wilson's Theory of the Presidency: Continuity and Change,” in Latham, Earl, ed., The Philosophy and Policies of Woodrow Wilson (Chicago, 1958), pp. 46–66Google Scholar.
9 Quoted in Link, Arthur S., Wilson: The Road to the White House (Princeton, 1947), pp. 232–3Google Scholar . Link has an excellent general account of this struggle in his chapter entitled “The First Battle.”
10 See, inter alia, Wilson, Woodrow, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York, 1908), pp. 104, 188Google Scholar.
11 This speech is cited in full in College and State, vol. II, pp. 283–90. See also, Wilson's letter to Professor R. H. Dabney of the University of Virginia, December 26, 1911, cited in ibid., pp. 323–4.
12 For an excellent account of Wilson's role in this struggle, see Link, Arthur S., Wilson: The New Freedom (Princeton, 1956), pp. 36–48Google Scholar.
13 House Diary, October 19, 1916.
14 House to Wilson, October 20, 1916, The Papers of Edward M. House, Yale University Library; hereinafter cited as the House Papers.
15 House Diary, November 19, 1916. On the day of the election, when it appeared that Wilson might lose, Attorney General Thomas W. Gregory and House investigated the legal means to accomplish this resignation; see, ibid., November 9, 1916.
16 Wilson to Lansing, November 5, 1916, The Papers of Ray Stannard Baker, The Library of Congress, Series I, Lansing File. Hereinafter cited as Baker Papers.
17 Ray Stannard Baker and Dodd, William E., editors, The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: War and Peace (New York and London, 1927), vol. I, pp. 11–12Google Scholar; hereinafter cited as War and Peace.
18 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 6.
19 Wilson, , Constitutional Government, p. 65Google Scholar.
20 Ibid., p. 68. Cf. Alstyne, Richard W. Van, “Woodrow Wilson and the Idea of the Nation State,” International Affairs, vol. 37, no. 3 (07, 1961), pp. 297–298Google Scholar.
21 Wilson, , Constitutional Government, p. 139Google Scholar. Wilson then proceeded to extol the British parliamentary system, with its basic right of dissolution.
22 Quoted in Link, Wilson: The Road to the White House, p. 519.
23 Wilson to House, July 2, 1916, House Papers.
24 House Diary, November 2, 1916.
25 House Diary, May 12, 1919.
26 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 88–9. Italics inserted.
27 See Link, , Wilson: The Road to the White House, pp. 285–6Google Scholar.
28 Dimock, Marshall E., “Woodrow Wilson as Legislative Leader,” Journal of Politics, vol. 19, no. 1 (02, 1957), p. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The press release is to be found in Baker, Ray Stannard and Dodd, William E., editors, The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: The New Democracy (New York and London, 1926), vol. I, p. 36Google Scholar; hereinafter cited as The New Democracy.
29 War and Peace, vol. I, p. 286. The origin of this statement is not yet known. Wilson apparently adapted it from an idea offered by Tumulty and discussed it with several of his advisers. Wilson attributed its origin to Burleson, who has denied implication. Tumulty suggested and House denied that the latter had approved of it. Grayson did not know where the idea came from. See the House Diary, September 24, 1918, December 15, 1918, November 29, 1921, and October 17, 1924; Tumulty, Joseph P., Woodrow Wilson as I Know Him (New York, 1921)Google Scholar, chapter 35, entitled “Appeal for a Democratic Congress.”
30 Early in September House wrote to Wilson that if the Lodge-Roosevelt group came to Congress “flushed with victory, no appeal that you can make over their heads will be successful…” House to Wilson, House Papers, September 3, 1918.
31 House wrote on October 25 that he was “greatly disturbed” by the appeal, calling it a “needless venture.” House Diary, October 25, 1918. “It distresses me that you thought I committed a mistake in putting forth my appeal to the country,” wrote Wilson to Charles W. Eliot after the election; “If I erred, it was merely under the impulse to be frank with the people I am trying to serve.” Wilson to Eliot, November 8, 1918, Baker Papers, Series I, Eliot File. One writer has stated that the election returns might have been more Republican had the President not issued his appeal. See Bailey, Thomas A., Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (New York, 1944), p. 67Google Scholar. I would suggest that the statement had little if any effect upon the final outcome of the election; the campaign was fought largely on local issues and, where the national issue was of importance, positions had been generally crystallized by October 24, 1918, the date of the famous appeal. Cf., Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York and London, 1960), p. 533Google Scholar.
32 Martin, Laurence W., “Woodrow Wilson's Appeals to the People of Europe: British Radical Influence on the President's Strategy,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 74, no. 4 (12, 1959), p. 511CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wilson's, “Peace Without Victory” speech appears in The New Democracy, vol. II, pp. 407–414Google Scholar.
33 House Diary, January 28, 1919. The dispute bore on the issue of mandates under the League of Nations.
34 Printed in War and Peace, vol. I, pp. 465–8.
35 House attributed this to “the President's almost childish action in going into conferences with Lloyd George and Clemenceau without any of our secretaries to make a process verbal” to bind them. House Diary, April 26, 1919.
36 Alexander, L. and George, Juliette L., Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study (New York, 1956), p. 114Google Scholar.
37 Ibid., p. 120.
38 Quoted in the House Diary, March 28, 1919; cf., Clemenceau's account of the same event in ibid., June 10, 1922.
39 House Diary, April 6, 1919.
40 House Diary, October 30, 1918.
41 House Diary, October 29, 1918, October 30, 1918; House to Wilson, October 30, 1918, House Papers.
42 House Diary, January 7, 1919.
43 House to Wilson, February 24, 1919, House Papers.
44 House Diary, March 24, 1919.
45 House Diary, April 5, 1919.
46 House Diary, May 3, 1919.
47 Wilson, Edmund, “Woodrow Wilson at Princeton,” a review (dated 11 30, 1927Google Scholar) of the first two volumes of Ray Stannard Baker's biography, Woodrow Wilson: Life and Letters; reprinted in Edmund Wilson, The Shores of Light: A Literary Chronicle of the Twenties and Thirties (New York, 1952), pp. 298–324, quotation on p. 319.
48 Miller, David Hunter, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (privately printed, 1924), vol. I, p. 254Google Scholar.
49 War and Peace, vol. I, p. 548.
50 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 311; cf., also, vol. I, p. 645; vol. II, p. 325; et passim.
51 War and Peace, vol. I, p. 645.
52 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 212–3.
53 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 230–1.
54 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 75; cf., vol. II, p. 5, 212; et passim.
55 War and Peace, vol. I, p. 596; vol. I, p. 638; vol. II, pp. 50, 196, 235, et passim.
56 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 55; cf., vol. II, pp. 383–4; et passim.
57 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 246.
58 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 9.
59 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 230–1.
60 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 9.
61 War and Peace, vol. I, p. 594; cf., vol. I, p. 645; vol. II, pp. 9, 18, 43, 246, 383–4; et passim.
62 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 453–6.
63 See the letter from Mrs. Wilson to Attorney General Palmer and his reply dated December 22, 1919; cited in Bailey, , Woodrow Wilson and the Great Betrayal (New York, 1945), p. 399Google Scholar.
64 House Diary, January 11, 1920.
65 Bailey paraphrases the text of this proposal in his Woodrow Wilson and the Great Betrayal, op. cit., pp. 214–5. This unissued appeal has been tentatively dated January 26, 1920 by the Library of Congress.
66 See above, pp. 5–6.
67 Elizabeth Boiling Wilson to Burleson, January 28, 1920; copy in Baker Papers, Series I, Burleson File.
68 The Robert Lansing Papers, Private Memoranda, 01 10, 1920 (vol. III, pp. 10–12)Google Scholar; The Library of Congress.
69 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 460–1.
70 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 483.
71 War and Peace, vol. II, p. 492.
72 Bainbridge Colby to Wilson (code message), July 2, 1920; Baker Papers, Series I, Cummings File. For a persuasive presentation of the argument that Wilson did seek the nomination, see Bagby, Wesley M., The Road to Normalcy: The Presidential Campaign and Election of 1920 (Baltimore, 1962)Google Scholar. Bagby's interpretation suffers from a lack of relevant electoral data that would place the 1920 election in its larger context of American voting behavior. For a discussion of this point, see Benson, Lee, “Research Problems in American Political Historiography,” in Komarovsky, Mirra, editor, Common Frontiers of the Social Sciences (Glencoe, Illinois, 1957), pp. 113–183Google Scholar.
73 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 503–5.
74 New York Times, August 8, 1920.
75 New York Times, October 26, 1920.
76 War and Peace, vol. II, pp. 506–10.
77 Wilson indicated this both to Raymond Fosdick and Edward Bok late in 1923; see, House Diary, November 23 and December 14, 1923. It is interesting and instructive to compare Wilson's later attitudes with those discussed by Festinger, Leon, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, 1962)Google Scholar.
78 Cf., House Diary, November 23, 1923; and Stein, Charles W.The Third-Term Tradition: Its Rise and Collapse in American Politics (New York, 1943), pp. 252–3Google Scholar.
79 House Diary, November 13, 1920.