The Relations of Woodrow Wilson with the British Government 1914 - 1917
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1938 The Relations of Woodrow Wilson with the British Government 1914 - 1917 Elizabeth M. Shanley Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Shanley, Elizabeth M., "The Relations of Woodrow Wilson with the British Government 1914 - 1917" (1938). Master's Theses. 469. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/469 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1938 Elizabeth M. Shanley THE RELATIONS OF WOODROW WILSON WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT 1914 - 1917 Elizabeth M. Shanley Loyola University TABLE OF CON'lENTS page I. The Trad1t1onal Fore1gn Pollcy of the Unlted states 1 II. The Problems ot Neutrallty 9 III. The Controversy over Neutral 31 Rlghts IV. Attempts at Medlatlon 63 V. The End of Isolatlon 81 .' Chapter 1 The Traditional Foreign Policy of the United states The memorable message which President Wilson addressed to the Extraordinary Session of Congress on April 2, 1917, advis lng a Declaration of War against the Imperial Government of Germany, stands as a landmark in the hlstory of the foreign policy of the United states. His action, arising from his conviction that the honor of the United states could be main tained only by actively espousing the cause of the Allies, marks a reversal Of the time-honored and cherished attltude of non-intervention which through the years had become an in- tegral part Of oUr national llfe. So deep-rooted had become OUr acoeptanoe of the idea of isolation, that only eyents of the very gravest oharacter, reacting upon the oonviotions and emotions of the people as a whole, as well as upon their leader, would enable them to countenance SUch a break with tradition. Why was such a course possible? Why was the President a ble to lead ·the nation into war in spite of his earlier de termination to avoid foreign entanglements? The answers to these questions must be sought in the events and the diplo matio developments of the troublesome years of neutrality But before attempting to trace these foroes a brief consid- ~ --------------------------------------------,eration of the traditional foreign policy of the United states may lead to a better understanding of the signiticance.ot president Wilson's action. Moreover, as the declaration of war drew the United states into the closest co-operation with England, a survey ot the relations between these two countries during the previous century may not be amiss. The earliest policy of the United states was not one ot is- olation. In their struggle for freedom the colonies sought and accepted toreign aid. But, although they welcomed the alliance with France in 1778, that same alliance later threat ened to draw the new republic into the maelstrom ot the Euro- pean Wars. During her struggle with England the French Rev- olutionarY Government attempted to secure the help ot the United states according to the terms ot this treaty. In this national crisis Washington, ,on April 22, 1793, issued his tamous proclamation ot neutrality in Which he pledged the United states to a " ••• conduct friendly and impartial to the 1 belligerent powers." His views on the proper relations ot this country with Europe were amplitied in his Farewell Address, september 17, 1796, in which he advised that the United states in the tuture refrain from fOrming permanent alliances with any portion ot the rest of the world. Because ot our distant situation he 1 James D. Richardson, Compiler, A Compilation of the Messa~s and Papers ot the PreSidents, 10 V., New York, 1897, I, 1 8. ,... -~----------------------------------~--------------------~ maintained such ties would be artificial and would serve mere ly to bring this country into controversies, the cause~of 2 which were not our concern. washington's injunction, reinforced by similar pronounc.~ ments by later presidents and statesmen, came to have in- creased weight and significance. The issuariQe in 1823 of the Monroe Doctrine, which placed the principle of non-inter vention by Europe in American affairs side by side with the principle of American isolation from Europe, was the final bulwark which made these two principles an integral part of American policy. All through the nineteenth century the idea that the welfare of the nation was irrevocably bound up With the principle of the Monroe Doctrine was firmly adhered to by both statesman and citizen. Fears that American participa- tion in international conferences WaS ushering in a new era in our foreign relations proved to be unfounded. On the occasion of signing the treaty drawn up at the Hague Peace Conference, the delegates did so with the reservation that no departure from the traditional policy of the United states should be inferred from any part of the treaty. Similar sentiments were expressed by the Senate in 1906 in ratifying the treaty drawn up at the Algeciras Conference. But While the United states adhered to the tradition of political isolation, her foreign policy has all through her 2 llli·, I, 215· history been influenced by the desire to extend her commerce with toreign countr1es. This has, necessarily, brougbt her into very close contact With Great Brltain, the leading co~ mercial nation ot the world. For many reasons such a rela- tionship was lneVitable. England was the mother country from which to a large degree were der1 ved our language, our culture, and our inst1tutlons. From the very beginning the bulk ot our trade was With the Brltlsh Isles. Koreover, the Atlantlc ocean, which has been our chiet hlghway ot intercourse With the natlons ot the world, bas been dominated by the Brlt1sh Navy 3 and merchant marlne. This very closeness ot contact has resulted in many occa sions ot disagreement. The concluslon ot the War ot Independ- ence lett many questlons stlll unsettled. Brlt1sh occupation ot the Northwest, debt disputes, and ditticultles over bounda ries served to keep alive teelings ot bltterness and resent- mente The situatlon was further comp11cated by condltions ' in Europe growing out of the French Revolution. The out break ot war between France and England Ja9.rked the beginnlng of a struggle which in many ways was parallel to the perlod trom 1914 to 1917. Trade, whlch bad been renewed after the Reva- lutloDary War and was then thriving, became subject to restric- tions imposed by both countries. Then as in the recent period, according to Moore, the Un1ted states was taced With the prob- 3 John Holloday Latane, From Isolat10n to Leadership, New York, Doubleday, Page and Co., 1922, 100. lem ot deciding ..... how tar neutral powers are required to sub ordinate the interests ot their commerce to the hostiLt inter- 4 ests ot belligerents. U The Treaty ot Ghent settled none ot the issues ot the War ot 1812. It did, however, pave the Vlay tor the settlement by diplomatic procedure ot some of the most vexing s~bJects ot controversy between the two countries. This method was particularly successtul in settling questions involving our northern boundaries and the tisheries. But in questions re- lating to the treedom ot the seas it proved inettective. As a consequence, thecontlict ot maritime interests remained for many years a potential source ot IrrItatIon between the two nations. Their tormal diplomatiC intercourse ~hows that the states men ot bOth countries were undoubtedly animated by a sincere desire to ettect harmonious relations. Nevertheless powertul int~rests and deep teelings in both countries were working 1ncessantly in the oppOSite direction. The ~ailure to reach an agreement in matters respecting commerce and naVigation was attributed by Dunning to the very nature ot the problem. He said that it was " ••• inherent in the general condition ot world politics that America should be seeking new things and Great Britain should be standing by the old•••• The new comer among maritime powers tound herselt barred in every direction ; John Bassett Moore, American Diplomacy, Its Spirit and AChievements, New Yort, Harper and Bros., 1905, 53.· 5 'trom profltable trade." The right of natlons to regulate commerce ln thelr, own lnterests bad hltherto been unqulstloned and the Amerlcan demand for freedom ot commerclal lntercourse was a departure from accepted ideas. Between 1815 and the Clvil War a number of dlsputes arose, a few of whlch, such as the Oregon questlon, were serious enough to threaten peaceful relations with England. In spite, however, of the bltterness in the United states that remalned as a legacy from the Revolution and the war of 1812, and in splte of the antl-Brltish influence exerted by large groups of Irlsh lmmigrants, the Government Was able to adjust by arbl tratlon all of lts ,dlfflculties with England durlng thls perlod. A fresh crlsls developed durlng the Clvll War. Brltlsh recognition of the Confederate states as a belllgerent aroused bltter protests in the North. The Trent Affalr brought the na tlons to the verge of war and revealed a curious reversal of their historic posltions, with the Unlted states Uphold1ng the right of search and seizure and Great Britain upholding the princ1ple ot the freedom of the seas. Relations were still further stralned by the controversy over the depreda- tions of the Alabama. Continued refusal by the Br1tish Gov- ernment to consider proposals for a settlement were countered by ant1-English measures in this country. An ind1cat1on of 5 W1ll1am Archlbald Dunnlng, nThe British Em~1re and the yrtited states, New York, Charles Scribne8s Sons, 1914, 39.