The League of Nations

Why did America not join the League of Nations?  Historians like Alexander de Conde argue that the answer to this question relates to isolationism, a melancholy into which the republic periodically descends, a desire to remain aloof from world events.  Such an attitude, so the argument goes, is a fundamental part of the American character.

Yet consider the response of Senator Park Trammell to Wilson's Fourteen Points.  Trammell was a Florida lawyer who represented his state in Washington from 1917 to 1936.  When Wilson's Points were first debated in 1919, Trammell voted nay--but not because he felt America had no place in world affairs.  His concern was that the Fourteen Points failed to specify if 'Great Britain and her independent colonies shall have any greater vote or any greater power in the assembly of the league of nations than the United States'.  In other words, Trammell thought that Wilson's proposal did not offer America a part in the European state system equal to that of Britain.

The following year, when an amended version of the Fourteen Points was proposed, Trammell changed his vote.  He explained himself in this way:

'I have come to the conclusion that in order to try and preserve at least a part of the purpose and the object of the establishment of a League of Nations I shall vote for a resolution of ratification with these reservations, although some of them are objectionable to me.  I do this because I think, Mr. President, that we have yet something of the league left.  The President, when he forced it and brought about this concerted effort on the part of the Nation to bring about a condition which it was hoped would result in peace for the Nation, result in a new order of affairs, instead of continuing the old order of settling your difficulties with a shotgun, performed a great service by his own country and by the nations of the earth.  It is true it has been changed more or less.  I have favored some of the changes.  But I still believe, Mr. President, that there remains enough of the good in the plan of the League of Nations for us to give it a trial.'

The novelty of the League of Nations, according to Trammell, was not the fact of American intervention but its nature.  The shotgun would be set aside, at least for a time.

Read more about Trammell--and his mention of the Monroe doctrine--here.

Frederick the Great

At the turn of the century, the most controversial statue in Washington was a statue of Frederick the Great.  After two bombing attempts, one in 1905 and another in 1918, the statue went into storage.  Now it stands on the parade ground of the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.  Read more about the history here.

Bismarck v Lincoln

Interesting opinions on war.  Are they contradictory?

'Why do great states go to war?  The only good reason is state egoism, not romantic ideas.  It is not worthy for a great state to fight for something which is not in its own interest'.
Bismarck's speech to the Prussian Landtag on the Olmütz Agreement, 3 December 1850

'The central idea pervading this struggle is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity'.
Lincoln to John Hay, 1861

Cause and Effect

One recurring point of discussion is that of cause and effect.  What are the major factors driving historical change?  Recently historians have tended to focus on social issues.  And there is also important research being conducted on groups and movements that have otherwise been marginalised--in politics, society, or the historical record.  Another approach worth considering, and indeed one that has exerted influence in the past, is that put forward by MacKinder in his book, the Geographical Pivot of History.  See below for a relevant extract from page 422.