Jump to content
270soft Forum

Historic Vote #7: Versailles Treaty Ratification (League of Nations)


vcczar
 Share

Historic Vote #7: Versailles Treaty Ratification (League of Nations)  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. See my write up in the first post. Would you vote for or against joining the League of Nations?

  2. 2. Which kind of US Senator would you have been?

    • Pro-Wilson Senator voting for ratification.
    • Anti-Wilson Senator voting for ratification.
    • Isolationist Senator voting against ratification.
    • Imperialist Senator voting against ratification.
    • Senator representing many German-Americans voting against ratification.
    • Progressive Senator voting against ratification.
  3. 3. What is your view of the United Nations today?

  4. 4. What is your view of Woodrow Wilson?

  5. 5. As a Senator, would you have supported US involvement in World War I



Recommended Posts

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

You are a US Senator. It is 1919, not long after the First World War. 

The stroke-ridden incumbent President, Woodrow Wilson, has made it his personal goal to have the United States enter the League of Nations, an organization built to solve international issues, world economic issues, world trade issues, and possibly prevent a World War II. This International Organization was the primary friction in the Versailles Treaty ratification.
 
However, several obstacles were in the way for ratification. A major argument was that such a treaty would violate the precedence set by Washington to not be engaged in entangling alliances. Meanwhile, Imperialists feared that such a treaty would stifle expansion. German-Americans and the Senators representing them opposed the League and the Treaty because they thought of it as an Anti-German League and Anti-German treaty. Irish-Americans and the Senators representing them also opposed the League/Treaty, possibly because it might stifle the Irish independence movement. Many Senators were at odds with Pres. Wilson because he made the issue partisan, relying exclusively on Democrats for this foreign policy maneuver. Finally, some couldn't see the League of Nations as a successful organization without Wilson's leadership, and he didn't seem long for this world. 
 
GOP Senate Leader Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. Made efforts to amend the Treaty, most likely to appease Imperialists of which he was one of them. This failed. 
 
Strangely, nationalists and isolationists, conservatives and progressives, combined in a loose alliance called the "Irreconcilables" to oppose the bill. One leading "irreconcilable" was Progressive Republican Sen. George W. Norris of Nebraska (Interesting fact: He's my cousin--his mother was my 3x great-grandfather's sister). 
 
Would you have voted for the Versailles Treaty, which would add the United States as a member to the League of Nations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be a tough choice but I think it'd be better than nothing at the time. By WW2 it was clear we needed a League of Nations like organization. And we got that in the form of the UN. History would've definitely been interesting if the league was popular and widely supported. The Treaty of Versailles... while understandable, was also a bad treaty. Plus, at least at that time, I'd be a strong Pro-Wilson Democrat or Teddy-like Progressive Republican. Woodrow is underrated imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d be against because the League of Nations has no real power or authority. Also, the crippling war debt and harsh territorial concessions would not create a lasting peace. I’d support war involvement, but favor a peace deal that creates a more centralized international organization (like the EU) where members are economically connected and much less likely to go broke or attack each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, superezione said:

The League Of Nations was flawed, but necessary. Wilson was a horrible man and a horrible president.

Ay, don't go @ my boy Woody! :P I'm curious as to what makes you think he was a horrible man? I think a lot of his reforms were good and helped the country. Taft was wayyyy worse than Woody. To the point that Teddy spoiled the entire election for him. When Woodrow won he was like the first Democrat since Grover Cleveland to win office... nearly 20 years. He would go on to barely win his re-election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way to prevent WW2 would have been that the League works.

If in 1936 the allies would have declared war on Germany, Hitler would have lost in 3 months.

Isolationnalism is the thing which gave the opportunity for Hitler to become so powerfull, and actually it is also what helped Napoléon to conquer Europe (but the threat was way different)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were I senator at the time, I would have opposed it, although I were transported back as my 21st century self I'd support it. My primary reason would be the reason many progressives disliked it. It would make foreign affairs more of a focus, when progressives tended to favor attention on domestic issues. There was also the fear that it would lead to wars between League and anti-League countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PringlesN7 said:

Ay, don't go @ my boy Woody! :P I'm curious as to what makes you think he was a horrible man?

He was incredibly racist (even for his times!). He re-segregated the government and was very pro-segregation and Jim Crow in general. He screened "The Birth of a Nation" at the White House, and helped revive the KKK with his actions. He also definitely helped anti-german sentiment during World War One. He also campaigned on "Wilson kept us out of the war" and immediately went back on that promise. Wilson was also a very totalitarian man, using the War as an excuse to limit free speech, and imprison political opponents. This one is less important, but he was very idealistic, having a severe "House on the Shining Hill" ideology, making us look like fools during the Treaty of Versailles. He was unable to prevent the treaty from being the disaster it was, and his 14 points were a failure. The League of Nations, while a good idea, was executed horribly, in large part because of Wilson.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, superezione said:

He was incredibly racist (even for his times!). He re-segregated the government and was very pro-segregation and Jim Crow in general. He screened "The Birth of a Nation" at the White House, and helped revive the KKK with his actions. He also definitely helped anti-german sentiment during World War One. He also campaigned on "Wilson kept us out of the war" and immediately went back on that promise. Wilson was also a very totalitarian man, using the War as an excuse to limit free speech, and imprison political opponents. This one is less important, but he was very idealistic, having a severe "House on the Shining Hill" ideology, making us look like fools during the Treaty of Versailles. He was unable to prevent the treaty from being the disaster it was, and his 14 points were a failure. The League of Nations, while a good idea, was executed horribly, in large part because of Wilson.

You bring up good points. A lot of the, well, what would be considered moral wrongdoings was not solely because of him. He had bad cabinet members who had ties to certain groups. I dont blame him for campaigning on "He Kept Us out of War" he didnt necessarily say he WILL keep us out of war. I still think he was a much better alternative than another 4 years of Taft. Who knows what would've happened if Taft remained in office? I believe he was anti war... might be wrong. I know Teddy was pro-war and went around campaigning against Wilson on that during 1916. Still, I think Wilson was a decent successor to Roosevelt, contrary to Taft. Wilson's reform such as ending child labor... fighting for shorter work hours, and creating federal agencies to ensure our food we eat is clean, etc. Were all examples of good government imo. I think those who are more in line with Libertarian and anti-government program polices policies probably have this as one of the main reasons they dislike Wilson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PringlesN7

We've had several racist and white supremacist presidents. Wilson's behavior is often recorded as being the most overt. He basically threw out a black delegation at one point. 

Aside from the Adamses, all of our president until maybe Hayes or Garfield were at least White Supremacists. Despite owning slaves, Jefferson and Taylor were surprisingly the most eager to see things improve for blacks. Lincoln and Grant would be in this group but they had the added bonus of not being a slave holders. All four of these, and possibly the Adamses too, were white supremacists. 

Hayes was very anti-slavery but allowed Reconstruction to end and left blacks defenseless in the process. Garfield was a strong abolitionist. Had he lived, he might have tried to restart Reconstruction under another name. 

Despite TR's progressive nature, he was a white supremacist. Wilson, a Southerner, was an arch-white supremacist. 

After Wilson, you don't really get committed racists and white supremacist as president until Trump. From 1920-2016, most of the presidents are just apathetic about race. At worst, they purposely ignore the racial issues and at best they make token gestures. 

One of FDR's disappointments is that he was most apathetic. 

The only presidents that really made efforts to make lives better for blacks were Lincoln, Grant, Harding, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and surprisingly to a lesser degree, Obama. Blacks don't get many presidents that help them on issues that affect them uniquely as a race. Much of it is just rhetoric. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PringlesN7 said:

Ay, don't go @ my boy Woody! :P I'm curious as to what makes you think he was a horrible man? I think a lot of his reforms were good and helped the country. Taft was wayyyy worse than Woody. To the point that Teddy spoiled the entire election for him. When Woodrow won he was like the first Democrat since Grover Cleveland to win office... nearly 20 years. He would go on to barely win his re-election. 

 This video changed my mind on Wilson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a US Senator joining such an organization is only acceptable for me when the US is leading the organization. No more dysfunctional organizations implementing their own rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2020 at 12:45 AM, Conservative Elector 2 said:

If I were a US Senator joining such an organization is only acceptable for me when the US is leading the organization. No more dysfunctional organizations implementing their own rules.

So basically, make it all the more dysfunctional and with more arbitrary rules and agendas, and undermine it's principal role as a forum for "international," affairs and interests? Got it. :S

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

So basically, make it all the more dysfunctional and with more arbitrary rules and agendas, and undermine it's principal role as a forum for "international," affairs and interests? Got it. :S

returnoftheking.png.4243172d061525c2ca20df8c905d71a2.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...