Degree from Oklahoma University and a phd as well. He served as assistant to a political scientist, economist, and author and teaching assistant to former u. S. Secretary of state Madeleine Albright who was here for a private dinner earlier this year to drop a name or two. [laughter] gary joined the William JewellCollege Faculty in 1992 and serves as chair of the department of Political Science and director of the International Relations major. The William Jewell student body voted him professor of the year four times. Gary is also a longtime supporter of the National World war i museum and memorial and for that we are appreciative. Please give a warm welcome to dr. Gary armstrong. [applause] good evening and thank you for coming tonight. There should be a lot of interesting questions. On the hundredth anniversary of the senates first rejection of the treaty of versailles. What a great moment to talk about americas place in the world. It was a time of growing polarization and radicalization. There had been a series of race riots and the current estimate is between the summer of 1919 and the summer of 1921 Many Americans were killed. This would lead to the first bombing of an American City by our own air force. At the same time there were just two weeks before the senate would take its vote, a series of bombings that led to the red scare. It is entirely wrongly named. The people who did the bombings were anarchists, but attorney general palmer, whose own house was bombed, in a raid, launched a series of very vigorous raids to detain about 10,000 and arrest 3000 anarchists. 550 were deported. It is a time when we have race riots, radicals, we have the government using force. It is also a time, lest we forget, when americans were intensely polarized at the political level as well. On the day Woodrow Wilson appeared to ask the u. S. Congress for a declaration of war in april 1917 his famous speech had to be postponed. A very important matter had to be settled first which was who was going to have the speakership of the u. S. House of representatives . In the 1916 elections which Woodrow Wilson had barely won, they are some of the most closely fought in u. S. History. You had a virtual tie and there were hours of political and eggeling over who was going to get majority. This is the only time the Largest Party did not get the speakership. The republicans had more seats, but did not get speakership. This was the last time in American History where speakership was given because the democrats formed a small alliance with small parties. What is really interesting is that then the house turned to the question of the president s speech and declaration of war and a lot of very interesting members of congress voted no on the declaration of war. Including the first woman to sit in the u. S. House of representatives, jeanette rankin, who would vote against war after the attack on pearl harbor. She was a lifelong pacifist and could not accept the violation of her principal even if the United States was attacked in 1941. But also, the man who had just gotten the speakership of the house of representatives broke with the director of his party and refused to vote for the declaration. This is a time where Great Questions are at stake. People are intensely divided and politics is going to start impacting Foreign Policy. By the way, it is a great time because just as we are getting ready to debate how to end world war i a pandemic breaks out. The cdc estimates today about 675,000 lost their lives during the great influenza. Kansas city had about 2300 dead that is significantly larger than st. Louis who is better organized and ruthless when dealing with a pandemic. In the month of october alone 195,000 americans died. 50,000 americans died of wounds during world war i. And at about the time the senate is going to move into the most intense question about what should we do regarding the league of nations, we have the most serious medical crisis in the history of the american presidency. Woodrow wilson has a massive stroke on october 2nd. He has been on a nationwide tour. Toward the end of that tour they realized something was wrong with the president. They cleared the line, got him back as fast as they possibly could. He had been in washington, d. C. Briefly when he had the stroke. For six weeks, his wife maintained the charade there was nothing wrong with the president. No one was permitted to see the president for six weeks except the first lady, his physician, a handful of trusted aides, his own press secretary. What is interesting at is that mrs. Wilson made a terrible mistake. She isolated the president when what he probably needed the most for his longterm recovery was consistent interaction with people. That has led to a big argument we are going to see later that the president s catastrophic stroke led to an increasing rigidity in his personality that will lead him to make fundamental errors during the debate over the peace treaty. Are we talking plague or stroke, war . God bless us, we are this close to the four horsemen of the apocalypse. [laughter] so, the versailles treaty debate. It is the first time that a president of the United States proposed sweeping reforms to the fundamental basis of International Relations. It is the first time the american president goes abroad for diplomatic negotiations. Woodrow wilson goes abroad for basically seven months. People challenge this. They dont even believe he has the constitutional right to leave the territory of the United States. This is the first proposal for World Organization with something called collective security. That is the heart of the fight we are going to be exploring. This is the first time the United States will consider a treaty that technically, formally requires it to end its historical isolation. By isolation, i am using the definition we use in Political Science. You could be, in favor for example, in favor of sending missionary work. That doesnt make you an isolationist. But opposing commitments to europe could make you an imperialist and an isolationist. This will be the first time in the history of the body that the senate will invoke closure to stop the filibuster so they can actually get the business of voting done this will be the first time that the United States will the reject the senate will rejected peace treaty this is how it starts. President wilson landed back in the United States about july the 8th, 1919 from his longtime in europe. He goes to new york and then goes to washington d. C. He carries the bound enormous copy of the treaty into the senate in fact, he is met by henry gift lodge who asked him if he would like help carrying the giant treaty and wilson apps and says not on your life then wilson gives this speech. The stage is set it has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of god who has let us into his way. We cannot turn back. We can only go forward, with lifted eyes and fresh and spirit, to follow the vision. It was of this that we dreamed at our birth america shall show the way the light streams upon the path ahead and nowhere else. There we reject it and break the heart of the world. This from the most accomplished rhetorician ever to become president of the United States. And this speech was a dad. It was too high. It was too flowery. But whats really interesting is youre going to see some more here in the New York Times from page coverage front page coverage of the president s speech. They get the basics of the speech, but you start to see down here some really interesting opening salvos that are already being waged the new majority leader of the senate saying dont forget we have the right to amend this treaty and we may have to prove it but two thirds vote, but we can amend it by majority vote. By the way, we republicans are now the majority because of the elections of 1918. You will also see that the president greets callers in the special rooms at the u. S. Capital. 30 democrats went to see the president and one republican. It was the first sign that very serious trouble was brewing on the fate of the treaty. Now to skip ahead. Here are the votes. 100 years ago tonight, and they closed at about 11 pm in washington d. C. Time. So i think we should all stay so we go for the full 100th hour. The vote for a set of reservations by henry kept lodge was 51 yes, 41 know the two thirds requirement for that number votes with 61. Then the vote for the treaty no reservations as president wilson himself had proposed it was 38 yes and 55 know it was not even close then in march of 20, after four months, they have another debate and another vote and this time the vote go up because 12 senators are absent. So this time the votes are 49 yes and 35 no. The requirement to pass a treaty is 56, so it has failed by seven votes. Then they have this special thing where those who were absent, although they could not vote, they could announce what their position would have been. That is how you wind up with this, 57 announced that had theyve been there, they would have voted yes or they did vote yes. 39 said that they were there and voted no or they would have voted no. Thats the highest that the senate never came. The closest the senate ever came to passing the versailles peace treaty. Now a lot of people say, this is the problem they were a group inside the senate called the irreconcilables. They said you couldnt drag us to vote for this treaty with all the horses of the american cavalry. We will not do this. Now theres a lot of discussion about how many were there im going to be using an estimate that you will see in a few different books. Normally, you will get between 15 and 18. Im going to lift the 18 and they include all kinds of fascinating senators. There is bob la follette. There is president Theodore Roosevelts attorney general and William Howard past secretary of state he was irreconcilable there was no way in the world he was going to vote for the treaty there is a new senator from illinois his name is mccormack. Now a lot of people say thats what happened these people somehow managed to defeat the treaty. Thats the story. And thats not the story at all. One of those irreconcilables is a complicated character. Hes our very own senator james read from kansas city. Senator reed had been in the senate or would be in the senate for 18 years he had been the mayor of kansas city from 1900 to 1904 when our Convention City burned and they rebuilt it. He made very clear he hat he wasnt you reconcilable because he was an isolationist. There was Something Else. He was a racist. He was very direct that he was afraid that the league of nations, with its dark skinned people, would eventually be able to outvote the white skinned people and impose a new order of racial equality at the International Level im not using some of his more incendiary quotes because they are public quotes laced with the nword. For some people, the story of james read becomes a story. A story of who opposed the treaty. Its provincialist bigotry. That sank this treaty. Thats not a good understanding of what happened here either. For example, in one of the best books about this fight, don milton coopers breaking the heart of the world, he says lets take a look at this for just a minute. A lot of people think that cosmopolitans, people who are fluent in Foreign Languages and have strong experts abroad, those would be the most people most likely to be in favor of the treaty. He says actually when you started the biographies, the people who were the most cosmopolitan members of the senate tended to be the most opposed to the treaty. So for example, that new senator mccormack was raised by a father diplomat. He used to boast and bragged that he learned to speak french before he learned to speak english. He was very involved with global affairs, but he was opposed to the treaty. This is senator knocks, the republican who had been president tapped secretary of the state. He was an irreconcilable, or hear something very interesting. During the senate debate, he announced a resolution that we now call the knox doctrine. It announced that if there were in the future any threat to the peace of europe, then the United States would regard it a grave matter, consult with friendly governments and consider the possibility of taking military action to deal with it. In other words, he is in irreconcilable, but not an isolationist. Now some people say, if its not the story of those irreconcilables who were probably provincial bigots, then surely be story is that American Public opinion wasnt ready for this gigantic step of a huge stride into a formal commitment to join the Security Architecture of world politics. In his book, power without victory, he says its time we kill that math we dont what we have what we would now call modern Public Opinion polling for another 50 years after the defeated versailles peace treaty. But what we normally used to gauge where Public Opinion was in those days was to look at where newspapers were and the evidence, he says, is overwhelming. There was very strong American Public opinion support for the treaty and for joining the league of nations. Look at that list of newspapers, except for the kansas city star. Many of them including the st. Louis post favored the treaty. He takes a look at religious organizations, which were incredibly important 100 years ago, and its overwhelming support from protestants, including that this, to catholics and jews. Labour was very in favor of the treaty, although they had some strong reservations about one component of the treaty. Seven groups like the new American Legion came out in favor of the treaty and joining the league of nations. 17 state legislatures passed resolutions including the legislatures of california and massachusetts, which happened to be the homes of the two most important opponents of the treaty. And the most important brand new single Issue Advocacy organization in the United States with something called the league for peace. It had thousands of members all over the country and they had 100,000 dollar budget to try to advocate for the treaty. It was led by the former president William Howard taft. The evidence is this treaty had the Popular Support to be approved. By the way there, were some really interesting intellectuals who were trying to make fundamental decisions about this. So theres the great feminist social worker jane adams of chicago. There is w. Be duboiss. Both of them very disappointed for their previous support Woodrow Wilson. Adams because the president had not been a vigorous supporter of the constitutional amendment to give one in the vote. By the way, he had supported in franchising women, but he had not supported doing it through a constitutional amendment. Then the boys, was furious at the president s inability to articulate publicly a strong opposition to lynching, or to articulate why we needed to stop the race riots. Whats interesting is both of them thought things over and decided they never would support Woodrow Wilson and the lead. This is Walter Lippman. By the 1960s and seventies, i am told, i have read, there was hardly any serious person of the day, that americans did not wait to see what he would think about it he was a young adviser to Woodrow Wilson and then broke with Woodrow Wilson at the new republic the new republic in the summer of 1919 published a major attack on the versailles peace treaty and the league of nations thousands of subscribers to the new republic canceled their subscriptions, angered at the attack on the president and the lead. By the way, Walter Lippman 15 years later, said this is one of the biggest mistakes in my life. If i could do things over again, i would have continued to support Woodrow Wilson and the lead. Not only is their strong public support, theres really interesting stuff going on among key american intellectuals, who are aggravated with the president , but aside overall that the possibility of progressive reform and International Governance is still worth it. Heres the last thing you need to know before we start getting to a couple of really important points. I think, using a stoplight approach, that we can get a glimpse of what the balance in the senate was about this treaty and you are going to start to suspect something pretty quickly. This is a tragedy. If we take the green and yellow, then we can see that three quarters of the senate was willing to join the league and pass the treaty the opponents were small, they were vigorous, they were energetic, they were vociferous, but they didnt have the votes to stop this treaty. The whole question of whether this treaty would go was could the green and the yellow get together. What i want to do for the next little bit is explain why they didnt. Our antagonis