James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Fall 2015 The onrM oe Doctrine as the transparent veil of isolation during the League of Nations debate Luther D. Roadcap James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Roadcap, Luther D., "The onrM oe Doctrine as the transparent veil of isolation during the League of Nations debate" (2015). Masters Theses. 74. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/74 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Monroe Doctrine as the Transparent Veil of Isolation During the League of Nations Debate Luther D. Roadcap A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History December 2015 FACULTY COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Steven Guerrier Committee Members/ Readers: Skip Hyser Kevin Hardwick Joanne Hartog Acknowledgements It is with great joy and anticipation that I have reached the stage where I can put the finishing touches on my thesis. However, I would be derelict in my duties if I did not spend time to recognize those who have assisted me in my endeavors to write this spellbinding and intellectually stimulating thesis. While some could perceive the latter part of the previous sentence to be quite arrogant, I feel that it is not. Having spent countless hours engrossed in books and sifting through numerous pages of primary sources, it is the conversations I have had with others that have added to the quality of my work. Thus, I owe all those who have helped me with this project a sincere thank you. Without your engaging conversations, I may not have been able to flesh out my true argument, nor would I have been able to thoroughly understand the complexities surrounding the characters within my research. First, and foremost, this project never would have gotten off the ground if it had not been for my undergraduate advisor, Dr. Brandon Marsh, who not only encouraged me to discover my passion in history, but believed in my abilities as a historian. Additionally, my graduate thesis advisor, Dr. Steven Guerrier, and those who served on my thesis committee: Dr. Skip Hyser, Dr. Kevin Hardwick, and Ms. Joanne Hartog, have all contributed to this thesis through their thoughtful comments and questions. I also wish to thank my classmates from the Spring 2015 Graduate Research and Writing Seminar, as well as Dr. Gabrielle Lanier, who provided constructive criticism of my work. While many have provided me assistance with wrapping my mind around the history involved, there are others who need to be acknowledged as well. I knew I could always count on Paula Weddle in Interlibrary Loan to put through my requests and ii acquire the resources I needed. Further, my co-workers in Visitor Services at the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and Museum have always been supportive and interested to learn of my new discoveries. Invariably, my fascination with America’s 28th president and his diplomatic pursuits led me to talk about my research to almost anyone who would listen! Thus, I must thank those who indulged me in conversation about the topic. In particular, to my roommates at Bridgewater College: Michael Reuschling, Marshall Dunn, and Steven Maddox, thank you for listening. Additionally, I owe a sincere amount of gratitude to my colleagues at Elkton Middle School who have supported me throughout my time as a graduate student. I especially thank Berkley Todd, Jamie Baker, and Angie Deane for proofreading and providing feedback to help make the prose clearer and more readable. Most of all, my parents deserve more credit than anyone could ever imagine. You both have taught me that I can do anything I set my mind to. Without your steadfast love and encouragement, none of this would have been possible. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………... v List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………. vi Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………... vii Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. 1 The Imperialist Monroe Doctrine …………………………………………………… 7 League to Enforce Peace: A Forum ………………………………………………… 22 The Paris Peace Conference ………………………………………............................ 40 Pro-League Senators ………………………………………………........................... 59 A Transparent Veil of Isolation ……………………………………………………... 84 iv List of Tables Table 1: Break-down of votes on March 19, 1920 regarding the Lodge reservations……………………………………………………………........ 82 v List of Figures Figure 1 Parisians Greet Wilson …………………………………………………...... 1 Figure 2 Henry Cabot Lodge ………………………………………………………... 30 Figure 3 David Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando, Georges Clemenceau, 40 Woodrow Wilson ………………………………………………………...... Figure 4 Edward M. House, Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson, Henry White, Tasker H. Bliss …………………………………………………………….. 43 Figure 5 Mexico Refuses to Recognize the Monroe Doctrine ………………………. 57 Figure 6 Wilson returning to Washington, D.C. after canceling his western tour …... 76 vi Abstract In June 1919, President Woodrow Wilson returned from Paris after several months of negotiating the Treaty of Versailles to end World War One. At the peace conference, Wilson achieved his goal of establishing the League of Nations. However, he had one more hurdle: convince the Republican Senate to ratify the treaty. This was no easy task as Republicans claimed the treaty nullified the Monroe Doctrine, even though the century-old foreign policy was recognized, by name, in the League of Nations Covenant. Why, then, did opponents of the League of Nations in the United States claim isolation and refuse to ratify the treaty even though the Monroe Doctrine was included in the diplomatic agreement? The answer lies with the Republican foreign policy of expansionism that thrust the United States onto the world stage as a colonial power in 1898. Evidence from letters, diaries, and published articles by major Republican leaders, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, proves that the United States wished to maintain its authority over the Western Hemisphere and other areas controlled by the colonial power. Further, an examination of the interactions between Democratic and Republican leaders illustrates the urgency with which those opposed to the League placed on the protection of the Monroe Doctrine’s authority within the Western Hemisphere. While one cannot disregard the political drama that unfolded during the League of Nations debate in 1919, it is necessary to look at a broader picture in order to understand why opponents wished to include the Monroe Doctrine in the treaty and pretend to be in isolation. The conclusion that the United States wished to remain sovereign with authority over the Western Hemisphere provides the notion that Americans wanted to be vii on par with European imperial powers, but also provides answers as to why many in 1919 argued that the United States was an isolationist nation, even when it clearly was not. viii 1 Introduction On December 14, 1919, a flurry of activity engulfed the streets of Paris. Many people lined the broad avenues and looked from their balconies just to catch a glimpse of the man whom they believed would save the world from all future wars.1 This enthusiasm was not limited just to Paris. Neglected and subservient people all over the world heard this man’s message and Figure 1: Parisians Greet Wilson, [c. 14 Dec. 1918], wholeheartedly supported his vision for a Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library new international order.2 The world loved him, and he loved the world. However, this son of a Presbyterian minister, who witnessed the carnage of the American Civil War as a young boy, was not loved by the entire world. In fact, he was despised by a select number of senators from his home country. This man was Woodrow Wilson, twenty-eighth president of the United States. The story about Wilson’s fight for the League of Nations against the recalcitrant Republican senators is all too familiar. Historians cannot get enough of this early twentieth century political drama that engulfed the United States. The suspense, the back- room dealing, the name-calling, and the transition of the United States from a growing 1 For two vivid descriptions of Wilson’s entry into Paris, see Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (New York: Random House, 2001), 15 – 16; and, John Milton Cooper, Jr., Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (New York: Random House, 2009), 462. 2 For a discussion detailing how Woodrow Wilson’s message of self-determination sparked conversation and excitement throughout the world, see Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self- Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). For an account of two Polish peasants who walked to Paris accompanied by an astronomer and a priest to urge Wilson to include their homeland within the creation of Poland, see Diary of Dr. Grayson, April 11, 1919, in Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 57 (Princeton, New Jersey: