headerphoto

Primary Documents - President Woodrow Wilson's Address in Favour of the League of Nations, 25 September 1919

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson Arriving home from Europe in 1919 in the wake of the settlements agreed at the Paris Peace Conference, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson set about the seemingly impossible task of convincing the U.S. Congress, loaded as it was with his political enemies, to ratify both the treaty and to approve American participation in Wilson's own invention, the League of Nations.

Wilson toured the country to canvass support in favour of both treaty and League, until illness forced him to abandon the tour and return home.  He gave one of his final addresses (as President) in support of the League in Pueblo, CO., on 25 September 1919.

The text of Wilson's address is reproduced below.  Both treaty of League were ultimately rejected by Congress.

One of President Woodrow Wilson's
Final Addresses in Support of the
League of Nations,
25 September 1919, Pueblo, CO.

Mr. Chairman and fellow countrymen: It is with a great deal of genuine pleasure that I find myself in Pueblo, and I feel it a compliment in this beautiful hall.  One of the advantages of this hall, as I look about, is that you are not too far away from me, because there is nothing so reassuring to men who are trying to express the public sentiment as getting into real personal contact with their fellow citizens.

I have gained a renewed impression as I have crossed the continent this time of the homogeneity of this great people to whom we belong.  'They come from many stocks, but they arc all of one kind.  They come from many origins, but they are all shot through with the same principles and desire the same righteous and honest things.  I have received a more inspiring impression this time of the public opinion of the United States than it was ever my privilege to receive before.

The chief pleasure of my trip has been that it has nothing to do with my personal fortunes, that it has nothing to do with my personal reputation, that it has nothing to do with anything except great principles uttered by Americans of all sorts and of all parties which we are now trying to realize at this crisis of the affairs of the world.

But there have been unpleasant impressions as well as pleasant impressions, my fellow citizens, as I have crossed the continent.  I have perceived more and more that men have been busy creating an absolutely false impression of what the treaty of peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations contain and mean.

I find, moreover, that there is an organized propaganda against the League of Nations and against the treaty proceeding from exactly the same sources that the organized propaganda proceeded from which threatened this country here and there with disloyalty, and I want to say-I cannot say too often-any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.

If I can catch any man with a hyphen in this great contest I will know that I have got an enemy of the Republic.  My fellow citizens, it is only certain bodies of foreign sympathies, certain bodies of sympathy with foreign nations that are organized against this great document which the American representatives have brought back from Paris.

Therefore, in order to clear away the mists, in order to remove the impressions, in order to check the falsehoods that have clustered around this great subject, I want to tell you a few very simple things about the treaty and the covenant.

Do not think of this treaty of peace as merely a settlement with Germany.  It is that.  It is a very severe settlement with Germany, but there is not anything in it that she did not earn.  Indeed, she earned more than she can ever be able to pay for, and the punishment exacted of her is not a punishment greater than she can bear, and it is absolutely necessary in order that no other nation may ever plot such a thing against humanity and civilization.

But the treaty is so much more than that.  It is not merely a settlement with Germany; it is a readjustment of those great injustices which underlie the whole structure of European and Asiatic society.  This is only the first of several treaties.  They are all constructed upon the same plan.  The Austrian treaty follows the same lines.  The treaty with Hungary follows the same lines.

The treaty with Bulgaria follows the same lines.  The treaty with Turkey, when it is formulated, will follow the same lines.  What are those lines?  They are based upon the purpose to see that every government dealt with in this great settlement is put in the hands of the people and taken out of the hands of coteries and of sovereigns who had no right to rule over the people.

It is a people's treaty, that accomplishes by a great sweep of practical justice the liberation of men who never could have liberated themselves, and the power of the most powerful nations has been devoted not to their aggrandizement but to the liberation of people whom they could have put under their control if they had chosen to do so.

Not one foot of territory is demanded by the conquerors, not one single item of submission to their authority is demanded by them.  The men who sat around that table in Paris knew that the time had come when the people were no longer going to consent to live under masters, but were going to live the lives that they chose themselves, to live under such governments as they chose themselves to erect.  That is the fundamental principle of this great settlement.

And we did not stop with that.  We added a great international charter for the rights of labour.  Reject this treaty, impair it, and this is the consequence of the labouring en of the world, that there is no international tribunal which can bring the moral judgments of the world to bear upon the great labour questions of the day.

What we need to do with regard to the labour questions of the day, my fellow countrymen, is tilt them into the light, is to lift them out of the haze and distraction of passion, of hostility, out into the calm spaces where men look at things without passion.  The more men you get into a great discussion is the more you exclude passion.

Just as soon as the calm judgment of the world is directed upon the question of justice to labour, labour is going to have to forum such as it never was supplied with before, and men everywhere are going to see that the problem of labour is nothing more nor less o than the problem of the elevation of humanity.

We must see that all the questions which have disturbed the world, all the questions which have eaten into the confidence of men toward their governments, all the questions which have disturbed the processes of industry, shall be brought out where men of all points of view, men of all attitudes of mind, men of all kinds of experience, may contribute their part of the settlement of the great questions which we must settle and cannot ignore.

At the front of this great treaty is put the Covenant of the League of Nations.  It will also be at the front of the Austrian, treaty and the Hungarian treaty and the Bulgarian treaty and the treaty with Turkey.  Every one of them will contain the Covenant of the League of Nations, because you cannot work any of them without the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Unless you get the united, concerted purpose and power of the great Governments of the world behind this settlement, it will fall down like a house of cards.  There is only one power to put behind the liberation of mankind, and that is the power of mankind.  It is the power of the united moral forces of the world, and in the Covenant of the League of Nations the moral forces of the world are mobilized.  For what purpose?

Reflect, my fellow citizens, that the membership of this great League is going to include all the great fighting nations of the world, as well as the weak ones.  It is not for the present going to include Germany, but for the time being Germany is not a great fighting country.  All the nations that have power that can be mobilized are going to be members of this League, including the United States.

And what do they unite for?  They enter into a solemn promise to one another that they will never use their power against one anther for aggression; that they never will impair the territorial integrity of a neighbour; that they never will interfere with the political independence of a neighbour; that they will abide by the principle that great populations are entitled to determine their own destiny and that they will not interfere with that destiny; and that no matter what differences arise amongst them they will never resort to war without first having done one or other of two things - either submitted the matter of controversy to arbitration, in which case they agree to abide by the result without question, or submitted it to the consideration of the council of the League of Nations, laying before that council all the documents, all the facts, agreeing that the council can publish the documents and the facts to the whole world, agreeing that there shall be six months allowed for the mature consideration of those facts by the council, and agreeing that at the expiration of the six months, even if they are not then ready to accept the advice of the council with regard to the settlement of the dispute, they will still not go to war for another three months.

In other words, they consent, no matter what happens, to submit every matter of difference between them to the judgment of mankind, and just so certainly as they do that, my fellow citizens, war will be in the far background, war will be pushed out of that foreground of terror in which it has kept the world for generation after generation, and men will know that there will be a calm time of deliberate counsel.

The most dangerous thing for a bad cause is to expose it to the opinion of the world.  The most certain way that you can prove that a man is mistaken is by letting all his neighbours know what he thinks, by letting all his neighbours discuss what he thinks, and if he is in the wrong you will notice that he will stay at home, he will not walk on the street.

He will be afraid of the eyes of his neighbours.  He will be afraid of their judgment of his character.  He will know that his cause is lost unless he can sustain it by the arguments of right and of justice.  The same law that applies to individuals applies to nations.

But, you say, "We have heard that we might be at a disadvantage in the League of Nations." Well, whoever told you that either was deliberately falsifying or he had not read the Covenant of the League of Nations.  I leave him the choice.  I want to give you a very simple account of the organization of the League of Nations and let you judge for yourselves.

It is a very simple organization.  The power of the League, or rather the activities of the league, lie in two bodies.  There is the council, which consists of one representative from each of the principal allied and associated powers-that is to say, the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, along with four other representatives of smaller powers chosen out of the general body of the membership of the League.

The council is the source of every active policy of the League, and no active policy of the League can be adopted without a unanimous vote of the council.  That is explicitly stated in the Covenant itself.  Does it not evidently follow that the League of Nations can adopt no policy whatever without the consent of the United States?

The affirmative vote of the representative of the United States is necessary in every case.  Now, you have heard of six votes belonging to the British Empire.  Those six votes are not in the council.  They are in the assembly, and the interesting thing is that the assembly does not vote.  I must qualify that statement a little, but essentially it is absolutely true.

In every matter in which the assembly is given a voice, and there are only four or five, its vote does not count unless concurred in by the representatives of all the nations represented on the council, so that there is no validity to any vote of the assembly unless in that vote also the representative of the United States concurs.

That one vote of the United States is as big as the six votes of the British Empire.  I am not jealous for advantage, my fellow citizens, but I think that is a perfectly safe situation.  There is no validity in a vote, either by the council or the assembly, in which we do not concur.  So much for the statements about the six votes of the British Empire.

Look at it in another aspect.  The assembly is the talking body.  The assembly was created in order that anybody that purposed anything wrong should be subjected to the awkward circumstance that everybody could talk about it.

This is the great assembly in which all the things that are likely to disturb the peace of the world or the good understanding between nations are to be exposed to the general view, and I want to ask you if you think it was unjust, unjust to the United States, that speaking parts should be assigned to the several portions of the British Empire?  Do you think it unjust that there should be some spokesman in debate for that fine little stout Republic down in the Pacific, New Zealand?

Do you think it was unjust that Australia should be allowed to stand up and take part in the debate-Australia, from which we have learned some of the most useful progressive policies of modern time, a little nation only five million in a great continent, but counting for several times five in its activities and in its interest in liberal reform?

Do you think it unjust that that little Republic down in South Africa whose gallant resistance to being subjected to any outside authority at all we admired for so many months and whose fortunes we followed with such interest, should have a speaking part?

Great Britain obliged South Africa to submit to her sovereignty, but she immediately after that felt that it was convenient and right to hand the whole self government of that colony over to the very men whom she had beaten.

The representatives of south Africa in Paris were two of the most distinguished generals of the Boer Army, two of the realest men I ever met, two men that could talk sober counsel and wise advice, along with the best statesmen in Europe.  To exclude Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts from the right to stand up in the parliament of the world and say something concerning the affairs of mankind would be absurd.

And what about Canada?  Is not Canada a good neighbour?  I ask you, Is not Canada more likely to agree with the United States than with Great Britain?  Canada has a speaking part.  And then, for the first time in the history of the world, that great voiceless multitude that throng hundreds of millions strong in India, has a voice, and I want to testify that some of the wisest and most dignified figures in the peace conference at Paris came from India, men who seemed to carry in their minds an older wisdom than the rest of us had, whose traditions ran back into so many of the unhappy fortunes of mankind that they seemed very useful counsellors as to how some ray of hope and some prospect of happiness could be opened to its people.

I for my part have no jealousy whatever of those five speaking parts in the assembly.  Those speaking parts cannot translate themselves into five votes that can in any matter override the voice and purpose of the United States.

Let us sweep aside all this language of jealousy.  Let us be big enough to know the facts and to welcome the facts, because the facts are based upon the principle that America has always fought for, namely, the equality of self-governing peoples, whether they were big or little-not counting men, but counting rights, not counting representation, but counting the purpose of that representation.

When you hear an opinion quoted you do not count the number of persons who hold it; you ask, "Who said that?" You weigh opinions, you do not count them, and the beauty of all democracies is that every voice can be heard, every voice can have its effect, every voice can contribute to the general judgment that is finally arrived at.  That is the object of democracy.

Let us accept what America has always fought for, and accept it with pride that America showed the way and made the proposal.  I do not mean that America made the proposal in this particular instance; I mean that the principle was an American principle, proposed by America.

Well you come to the heart of the Covenant, my fellow citizens, you will End it in article ten, and I am very much interested to know that the other things have been blown away like bubbles.  There is nothing in the other contentions with regard to the league of nations, but there is something in article ten that you ought to realize and ought to accept or reject.

Article ten is the heart of the whole matter.  What is article ten?  I never am certain that I can from memory give a literal repetition of its language, but I am sure that I can give an exact interpretation of its meaning.  Article ten provides that every member of the league covenants to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of every other member of the league as against external aggression.

Not against internal disturbance.  There was not a man at that table who did not admit the sacredness of the right of self determination, the sacredness of the right of any body of people to say that they would not continue to live under the Government they were then living under, and under article eleven of the Covenant they are given a place to say whether they will live under it or not.

For following article ten is article eleven, which makes it the right of any member of the League at any time to call attention to anything, anywhere, that is likely to disturb the peace of the world or the good understanding between nations upon which the peace of the world depends.  I want to give you an illustration of what that would mean.

You have heard a great deal- something that was true and a great deal that was false-about that provision of the treaty which hands over to Japan the rights which Germany enjoyed in the Province of Shantung in China.  In the first place, Germany did not enjoy any rights there that other nations had not already claimed.

For my part, my judgment, my moral judgment, is against the whole set of concessions.  They were all of them unjust to China, they ought never to have been exacted, they were all exacted by duress, from a great body of thoughtful and ancient and helpless people.

There never was it any right in any of them.  Thank God, America never asked for any, never dreamed of asking for any.  But when Germany got this concession in 1898, the Government of the United States made no protest whatever.

That was not because the Government of the United States was not in the hands of high-minded and conscientious men.  It was.  William McKinley was President and John Hay was Secretary of State-as safe hands to leave the honour of the United States in as any that you can cite.

They made no protest because the state of international law at that time was that it was none of their business unless they could show that the interests of the United States were affected, and the only thing that they could show with regard to the interests of the United States was that Germany might close the doors of Shantung Province against the trade of the United States.

They, therefore, demanded and obtained promises that we could continue to sell merchandise in Shantung.  Immediately following that concession to Germany there was a concession to Russia of the same sort, of Port Arthur, and Port Arthur was handed over subsequently to Japan on the very territory of the United States.

Don't you remember that when Russia and Japan got into war with one another the war was brought to a conclusion by a treaty written at Portsmouth, N.H., and in that treaty without the slightest intimation from any authoritative sources in America that the Government of the United States had any objection, Port Arthur, Chinese territory, was turned over to Japan?

I want you distinctly to understand that there is no thought of criticism in my mind.  I am expounding to you a state of international law.  Now, read articles ten and eleven.  You will see that international law is revolutionized by putting morals into it.  Article ten says that no member of the League, and that includes all these nations at have demanded these things unjustly of China, shall impair the territorial integrity or the political independence of any other member of the League.

China is going to be a member of the League.  Article eleven says that any member of the League can all attention to anything that is likely to disturb the peace of the world or the good understanding between nations, and China is for the first time in the history of mankind afforded a standing before the jury of the world.

I, for my part, have a profound sympathy for China, and I am proud to have taken part in an arrangement which promises the protection of the world to the rights of China.  The whole atmosphere of the world is changed by a thing like that, my fellow citizens.  The whole international practice of the world is revolutionized.

But you will say, "What is the second sentence of article ten?  That is what gives very disturbing thoughts." The second sentence is that the council of the League shall advise what steps, if any, are necessary to carry out the guaranty of the first sentence, namely, that the members will respect and preserve the territorial integrity and political independence of the other members.

I do not know any other meaning for the word "advise" except "advise." The council advises, and it cannot advise without the vote of the United States.  Why gentlemen should fear that the Congress of the United States would be advised to do something that it did not want to do I frankly cannot imagine, because they cannot even be advised to do anything unless their own representative has participated in the advice.

It may be that that will impair somewhat the vigour of the League, but, nevertheless, the fact is so, that we are not obliged to take any advice except our own, which to any man who wants to go his own course is a very satisfactory state of affairs.  Every man regards his own advice as best, and I dare say every man mixes his own advice with some thought of his own interest.

Whether we use it wisely or unwisely, we can use the vote of the United States to make impossible drawing the United States into any enterprise that she does not care to be drawn into.

Yet article ten strikes at the taproot of war.  Article ten is a statement that the very things that have always been sought in imperialistic wars are henceforth foregone by every ambitious nation in the world.  I would have felt very much disturbed if, sitting at the peace table in Paris, I had supposed that I was expounding my own ideas.

Whether you believe it or not, I know the relative size of my own ideas; I know how they stand related in bulk and proportion to the moral judgments of my fellow countrymen, and I proposed nothing whatever at the peace table at Paris that I had not sufficiently certain knowledge embodied the moral judgment of the citizens of the United States.

I had gone over there with, so to say, explicit instructions.  Don't you remember that we laid down fourteen points which should contain the principles of the settlement?  They were not my points.  In every one of them I was conscientiously trying to read the thought of the people of the United States, and after I uttered those points I had every assurance given me that could be given me that they did speak the moral judgment of the United States and not my single judgment.

Then when it came to that critical period just a little less than a year ago, when it was evident that the war was coming to its critical end, all the nations engaged in the war accepted those fourteen principles explicitly as the basis of the armistice and the basis of the peace.  In those circumstances I crossed the ocean under bond to my own people and to the other governments with which I was dealing.

The whole specification of the method of settlement was written down and accepted before hand, and we were architects building on those specifications.  It reassures me and fortifies my position to find how before I went over men whose judgment the United States has often trusted were of exactly the same opinion that I went abroad to express.  Here is something I want to read from Theodore Roosevelt:

"The one effective move for obtaining peace is by an agreement among all the great powers in which each should pledge itself not only to abide by the decisions of a common tribunal but to back its decisions by force.  The great civilized nations should combine by solemn agreement in a great world league for the peace of righteousness; a court should be established.

A changed and amplified Hague court would meet the requirements, composed of representatives from each nation, whose representatives are sworn to act as judges in each case and not in a representative capacity."  Now there is article ten.

He goes on and says this: "The nations should agree on certain rights that should not be questioned, such as territorial integrity, their right to deal with their domestic affairs, and with such matters as whom they should admit to citizenship.  All such guarantee each of their number in possession of these rights."

Now, the other specification is in the Covenant.  The Covenant in another portion guarantees to the members the independent control of their domestic questions.  There is not a leg for these gentlemen to stand on when they say that the interests of the United States are not safeguarded in the very points where we are most sensitive.

You do not need to be told again that the Covenant expressly says that nothing in this covenant shall be construed as affecting the validity of the Monroe doctrine, for example.  You could not be more explicit than that.  And every point of interest is covered, partly for one very interesting reason.

This is not the first time that the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate of the United States has read and considered this covenant.  I brought it to this country in March last in a tentative, provisional form, in practically the form that it now has, with the exception of certain additions which I shall mention immediately.

I asked the Foreign Relations Committees of both Houses to come to the White House and we spent a long evening in the frankest discussion of every portion that they wished to discuss.  They made certain specific suggestions as to what should be contained in this document when it was to be revised.

I carried those suggestions to Paris, and every one of them was adopted.  What more could I have done?  What more could have been obtained?

The very matters upon which these gentlemen were most concerned were, the right of withdrawal, which is now expressly stated; the safeguarding of the Monroe doctrine, which is now accomplished; the exclusion from action by the League of domestic questions, which is now accomplished.  All along the line, every suggestion of the United States was adopted after the Covenant had been drawn up in its first form and had been published for the criticism of the world.  There is a very true sense in which I can say this is a tested American document.

I am dwelling upon these points, my fellow citizens, in spite of the fact that I dare say to most of you they are perfectly well known, because in order to meet the present situation we have got to know what we are dealing with.

We are not dealing with the kind of document which this is represented by some gentlemen to be; and inasmuch as we are dealing with a document simon-pure in respect of the very principles we have professed and lived up to, we have got to do one or other of two things-we have got to adopt it or reject it.  There is no middle course.

You cannot go in on a special-privilege basis of your own.  I take it that you are too proud to ask to be exempted from responsibilities which the other members of the League will carry.  We go in upon equal terms or we do not go in at all; and if we do not go in, my fellow citizens, think of the tragedy of that result-the only sufficient guaranty to the peace of the world withheld!

Ourselves drawn apart with that dangerous pride which means that we shall he ready to take care of ourselves, and that means that we shall maintain great standing armies and an irresistible navy; that means we shall have the organization of a military nation; that means we shall have a general staff, with the kind of power that the general staff of Germany had; to mobilize this great manhood of the Nation when it pleases, all the energy of our young men drawn into the thought and preparation for war.

What of our pledges to the men that lie dead in France?  We said that they went over there not to prove the prowess of America or her readiness for another war but to see to it that there never was such a war again.  It always seems to make it difficult for me to say anything, my fellow citizens, when I think of my clients in this case.

My clients are the children; my clients are the next generation.  They do not know what promises and bonds I undertook when I ordered the armies of the United States to the soil of France, but I know, and I intend to redeem my pledges to the children; they shall not be sent upon a similar errand.

Again and again, my fellow citizens, mothers who lost their sons in France have come to me and, taking my hand, have shed tears upon it not only, but they have added, "God bless you, Mr. President!"  Why, my fellow citizens, should they pray God to bless me?

I advised the Congress of the United States to create the situation that led to the death of their sons.  I ordered their sons overseas.  I consented to their sons being put in the most difficult parts of the battle line, where death was certain, as in the impenetrable difficulties of the forest of Argonne.

Why should they weep upon my hand and call down the blessings of God upon me?  Because they believe that their boys died for something that vastly transcends any of the immediate and palpable objects of the war.  They believe and they rightly believe, that their sons saved the liberty of the world.

They believe that wrapped up with the liberty of the world is the continuous protection of that liberty by the concerted powers of all civilized people.  They believe that this sacrifice was made in order that other sons should not be called upon for a similar gift-the gift of life, the gift of all that died - and if we did not see this thing through if we fulfilled the dearest present wish of Germany and now dissociated ourselves from those alongside whom we fought in the world, would not something of the halo go away from the gun over the mantelpiece, or the sword?  Would not the old uniform lose something of its significance?

These men were crusaders.  They were not going forth to prove the might of the United States.  They were going forth to prove the might of justice and right, and all the world accepted them as crusaders, and their transcendent achievement has made all the world believe in America as it believes in no other nation organized in the modern world.

There seem to me to stand between us and the rejection or qualification of this treaty the serried ranks of those boys in khaki, not only these boys who came home, hut those dear ghosts that still deploy upon the fields of France.

My friends, on last Decoration day I went to a beautiful hillside near Paris, where was located the cemetery of Suresnes, a cemetery given over to the burial of the American dead.  Behind me all the slopes was rank upon rank of living American soldiers, and lying before me upon the levels of the plain was rank upon rank of departed American soldiers.

Right by the side of the stand where I spoke there was a little group of French women who had adopted those graves, had made themselves mothers of those dear ghosts by putting flowers every day upon those graves, taking them as their own sons, their own beloved, because they had died in the same cause-France was free and the world was free because America had come!

I wish some men in public life who are now opposing the settlement for which these men died could visit such a spot as that.  I wish that the thought that comes out of those graves could penetrate their consciousness.  I wish that they could feel the moral obligation that rests upon us not to go back on those boys, but to see the thing through, to see it through to the end and make good their redemption of the world.  For nothing less depends upon this decision, nothing less than liberation and salvation of the world.

You will say, "Is the League an absolute guaranty against war?"  No; I do not know any absolute guaranty against the errors of human judgment or the violence of human passions but I tell you this: With a cooling space of nine months for human passion, not much of it will keep hot.

I had a couple of friends who were in the habit of losing their tempers, and when they lost their tempers they were in the habit of using very unparliamentary language.  Some of their friends induced them to make a promise that they never would swear inside the town limits.

When the impulse next came upon them, they took a street car to go out of town to swear, and by the time they got out of town they did not want to swear.  They came back convinced that they were just what they were, a couple of unspeakable fools, and the habit of getting angry and of swearing suffered great inroads upon it by that experience.

Now, illustrating the great by the small, that is true of the passions of nations.  It is true of the passions of men however you combine them.  Give them space to cool off.  I ask you this: If it is not an absolute insurance against war, do you want no insurance at all?  Do you want nothing?  Do you want not only no probability that war will not recur, lout the probability that it will recur?

The arrangements of justice do not stand of themselves, my fellow citizens.  The arrangements of this treaty are just, but they need the support of the combined power of the great nations of the world.  And they will have that support.  Now that the mists of this great question have cleared away, I believe that men will see the truth, eye to eye and face to face.

There is one thing that the American people always rise to and extend their hand to, and that is the truth of justice and of liberty and of peace.  We have accepted that truth and we are going to be led by it, and it is going to lead us, and through us the world, out into pastures of quietness and peace such as the world never dreamed of before.

Panzer was a term used to describe a German tank.

- Did you know?

Primary Docs

Bookmark