Treaty Truths

Treaty Truths

Unknown

WWP16235

1920 April 9

An editorial from the Charleston Gazette on the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles.

Cary T. Grayson Papers, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, Staunton, Virginia

English

EDITORIAL FROM THE CHARLESTON (W. VA. ) GAZETTE,TREATY TRUTHS.If one should say that the treaty program of the Senate is dishonorable and that its arguments against that instrument are purely inventions, he would be accused by many of exaggeration in statement. Yet, the facts tell a story that is more convincing of the charge of double-dealing than any descriptive words that can be employed.
In , the President called upon the nations to declare their respective purposes in entering the war, and what each expected at its close. For the United States he laid down fourteen points to be demanded.
No. 14 was as follows: “A general association of nations must be formed, under specific covenants, for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”This was accepted by the army and navy and by the people of this country as an official declaration by our President, our constitutional spokesman, of our purpose to see that this should be done at the close of the war. Neither the Senate nor the House objected. In fact, there seemed to be universal assent to these fourteen propositions. Nearly nine months afterwards, in , the Germans asked the Allies to state the terms upon which an armistice would be agreed upon. The unselfish attitude of this country, and many other surrounding and concurring circumstances, seemed to point to the President as the man to state these terms. They were finally put in writing, with the concurrence of all the Allies, and were signed by the Germans. The terms were the same as the fourteen points. Still there was not any protest from Congress and an apparent persistence in the acquiescence of the people of all parties in the United States to these fourteen propositions. The Peace Conference was called and the President insisted upon these fourteen propositions. A draft of the treaty was prepared and the President came back to the United States and this draft was seen and considered. The Republican leaders made only two objections--one was a demand for a more specific declaration as to the Monroe Doctrine. Another was a provision for withdrawal. The President went back to Paris and had both these suggestions put into the treaty.
Now these are the bald facts that history must and will write down and upon which and by which our conduct must be judged.
Article 10 of the treaty is the covenant upon which the senatorial ship foundered. Everything else was susceptible of adjustment.
What is article 10? It is as follows:Who has the impudence or the intellecutual dexterity to assert that it is different from point 14 of the official announcement of our purposes and objects in waging the war?Look at the words in both--“Political independence and territorial integrity.” The fourteen points “guaranteed” these: the treaty limits the guarantee against “foreign aggression.” If any difference can be found it must be that the treaty does not bind us as far as did the fourteen points. We may haggle and differentiate here at home about the small, hair-splitting points put into platforms to excuse the lack of courage or to enable speakers to talk “wet” in Milwaukee and “dry” in Kansas; but we are now ma,king world history and the millions of intelligent beings on the earth who read and think will see these two documents as they stand on history’s immortal page. The one, is our promise; the other is our performance. If China, Japan or England had proposed point 14 and had secured the signatures of other countries to an armistice upon that promise, how would we regard her if SHE refused to sign the treaty carrying it out IN THE EXACT LANGUAGE USED in the proposal?The United States is not a tricky nor double-dealing montebank; yet the Senate makes her seem so to the nations of the earth. Oh, the miserable special pleading politician, who hears the jingle of the profiteer’s dollar or the bugle call of the clan leader above the voice of Christ and the shrieks of dying soldiers, women and children, how can they look your own offspring in the face while a lot of speculators in war materials are playing Pontius Pilate with such a precious charge?How can a man say his prayers when denying in his heart the meaning of these two documents?The Senate disagreed because Wilson declined to be a two-faced coward. He refused to be a party to double-dealing with our allies and deception to our enemy.
Our generals in the field and the generals of the Allies made the armistice agreement with Germany. They are entitled to have their plighted faith respected. Wilson has stood up, like a brave, good man, for carrying out our avowed purpose in good faith. Do the peo:ple of the United States want to endorese good faith and square dealing or do they prefer to stand with the Senate as contract breakers and irresponsible, unreliable dodgers who will make a proposition today, secure and benefit of it tomorrow and repudiate it the day after?What a tale to tell! What a record to read! May the future Macauleys and Carlisles pillory the Senate and not the people of the United States.

Article