Woodrow Wilson's Fight for the League of Nations: A Reexamination

Abstract

Woodrow Wilson's Fight for the League of Nations: A Reexamination Leroy G. Dorsey One of the most dramatic political events of the twentieth century involved Woodrow Wilson's crusade for American participation in the League of Nations. In July 1919, Wilson pledged to establish an organization of free nations working in concert to "maintain the peaceful understandings of the world" through diplomacy and democracy, and not necessarily through military might.1 When Congress balked at American participation in the peace organization, one of the first of the modern rhetorical presidents embarked on his famous "whistle-stop" tour, stumping across the middle and western United States to preach directly to the public about the issue. Wilson's tour, however, played out as a Greek tragedy. His sermons about America's moral responsibility failed to generate the much-anticipated support in any substantive way. Wilson collapsed from exhaustion before he had finished his speaking tour, suffered a stroke days later, and was rendered incapacitated for several months.2 Without a demonstrative show of public support and with Wilson refusing to compromise on the issue during the Senate vote, Congress denied America's involvement with the League. Perhaps Thomas Bailey summarized this episode best: "elevated to a pinnacle hitherto unattained by mortal man, glimpsing the promised land of perpetual peace, [Wilson] suffered physical collapse, mental aimlessness, political defeat—and lived out the rest of his days in querulous impotence ."3 Trying to explain the reasons behind Wilson's disastrous tour has been a point of contention among scholars for decades. In assessing Wilson's rhetoric on his ill-fated tour, some scholars have critiqued it positively. His most famous biographer, Arthur Link, maintained that the president 's speeches on the League represent one of the "most notable forensic accomplishments in American history." August Heckscher likewise wrote that some of the speeches were "remarkable for their cogency and force," while Arthur Walworth noted that this "force," this "power to work magic with his words," not only brought Leroy G. Dorsey is Assistant Professor of Speech Communication at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. He wishes to thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. He wishes also to thank Vanessa Beasley and Alicia Marshall for their suggestions. © Rhetoric & Public Affairs Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999, pp. 107-135 ISSN 1094-8392 108 Rhetoric & Public Affairs tears to the eyes of journalists but converted some of Wilson's most determined critics . More guarded with his praise but nonetheless impressed, Kendrick Clements observed that Wilson's speeches were "seldom great," but that they did answer his opponent's objections to America's participation in the League. Clair Henderlider utilized a neo-Aristotelian framework to examine Wilson's speech texts. He concluded , among other things, that Wilson constructed "powerful arguments," buttressed with "some originality" of language, and a "pleasant" speaking voice.4 Other scholars provided a more negative critique of Wilson's speeches, concluding that the discourse lacked the eloquence and power of his earlier rhetoric. Jan Schulte Nordholt observed that the president's speeches were not all "polished and inspired pieces." William White echoed this sentiment, writing that Wilson "could not make magic with his words" to turn America's responsibility into an "adventure in idealism" as the president had concerning the nation's participation in World War One. Similarly, Sean Cashman noted that the president's "forlorn attempt" to educate the public made "little headway against popular isolationism" following the war. J. Michael Hogan and James Andrews negatively critiqued Wilson's last speech on the tour. They argued that the president "degraded the public" by giving a speech that "heaped invective on his political opponents, dismissed rather than refuted their arguments, and culminated in a combative refusal to compromise and maudlin emotionalism."5 Accounts of Wilson's tour, whether positive or negative in their conclusions, still fail to explain the president's inability to generate enough real support during his travels. Historical scholarship runs the gamut from dismissing the efficacy of the tour and laying blame on Wilson's uncompromising behavior during the Senate vote on the issue, or casting Wilson's speeches as noninspirational without offering much analysis as to why.6 Rhetorical scholarship...