Article X
Article X was the part of Wilson's Fourteen Points which argued for a organized League of Nations which would include all countries and have international partnerships militarily which should hypothetically prevent war. Congress was very against this as were other nations which is surprising because if everyone was so against it why was it still such a dominant topic in society. When we take a second and look back on why Congress would be against it we realize that one of Congress's biggest way to manipulate government and maintain control is by declaring war. This was one of the ways Congress can set checks and balances on the other branches of the government.
Something most of us haven't considered though is maybe Woodrow Wilson didn't just want to put an end to all wars but he himself wanted to be at the head of that movement and by barring Congress from the power to declare war he made himself more power. Is this the action of a progressive? It doesn't seem like it because that would mean he is just setting the country back. Now is it possible that this may be totally incorrect? Absolutely, and it probably is but it is intriguing because most people today when looking back at history see Woodrow Wilson as a great president who only wanted to benefit America and the world. Wilson had a very persistent nature and even when his health was failing tried to push the people to vote for the League of Nations which is one of the reasons my earlier theory is incorrect.
Wilson also had very tough shoes to fill because his predecessor was none other than Teddy Roosevelt who had make the american people very happy and left them on a fairly positive note. Having said that, Teddy Roosevelt didn't approve at all what Woodrow Wilson was doing which caused Wilson to have to deal with even more pressure than he would have had already.
I think this is an interesting perspective on the motives of Wilson. I would argue Wilson's stubbornness prevented him from compromising with the reservationists. But also, Article X was the entire backbone of his league of nations. Without it, there was no way to reach collective security. I think that because of the fundamental difference between Congress and Wilson's ideologies, it was one groups word against the other.
ReplyDeleteBecause Theodore Roosevelt didn't approve at all what Woodrow Wilson was doing, do you think that just made Woodrow Wilson more stubborn towards the league of nations? In a way to show people that he was in charge, and was just trying to bring peace and security to all?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting perspective on the motives of Wilson that make sense in the context of denying Congress their check over the executive branch which Wilson had spent so many years strengthening. I think that Wilson was a very intelligent man who knew how the play the system (after all he went through the Boss system and outplayed them). The balance of power in modern day society is fairly well established with some fluctuating changes. But back then, one miscalculation by one nation could effectively cripple them and put them out of the race to achieve superiority. It would be very interesting to have a conversation between Wilson and Obama, presidents separated by 100 years of innovation, war, and massive change.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a really interesting point that you brought up, I never thought that Wilson might have had other motives other than to help out the US and other countries to have peace. Thinking about this topic, I see that there could have been another motive behind the reason of why Woodrow Wilson wanted Article X to be passed.
ReplyDeleteI likev how you compared him to Teddy Roosevelt. That is a really interesting perspective, and questioned if he was a progressive or not.
ReplyDelete