Authors John M. Cooper and William G. Carleton disagree over whether Wilson himself was to blame for this failure.
Join the discussion by addressing questions such as:
What was the central argument of each author?
How did the author support his argument with specific, credible evidence?
Which author made a better argument and why?
In total, you must make at least 5 posts:
- answering one of the focus questions using the text
- asking a question of your own based on the text
- answering another student's question
- responding to - agreeing or disagreeing - at least TWO other student's posts. Your response should acknowledge the poster's position and add text-based evidence to support your position.
Make your first post by 12:00 pm on Monday afternoon. All posts must be completed by 3:00 PM.
Please sign your name at the end of your post or register with your first name. last initial so I know who is posting!
Please sign your name at the end of your post or register with your first name. last initial so I know who is posting!
The argument of John M. Cooper, took up the position that would blame Wilson for the United State's failure to join the League of Nations during the first world war. Within this piece, Cooper argued that because of his cardiovascular and neurological health issues as well as his messianic religious background, he held the incapability to compromise with not only the Treaty of Versailles, but with the American Republican party as well. As proved by the work of Edwin Weinstein, a trained neurologist from the 1970's, Wilson was unable to work to his full potential not just in the duration of the World War, but also within the White House. In the report filled by Weinstein and Arthur Link, they were able to conclude how Wilson's physical condition impacted his ability to compromise, "most significantly during the peace conference and the League Fight (page 199)." Along with these physical and neurological injuries, Wilson had been reported to have been a very unconfident child, beginning his religious supremacy tendencies as well as his "advanced" ideas, far ahead of any other party willing to compromise. Cooper states that because of these personality deformities, or his "promethean" attitude, his messianic state was enhanced, making him seem either stubborn or bold. Because of these "all-or-nothing" characteristics, Wilson could not accept "peace without victory", correlating to his lack of compromise and overall producing the nations lack of participation in the League of Nations.
ReplyDeleteIn the same piece, on page 196, John M. Cooper provides arguments against the psychological flaws that are often applied to Wilson. He did not display messianic qualities anymore than any of the other members at the conference, and stressed that the League was a "living thing," meaning he wanted it to evolve. He continually stressed that he would be open to alternatives. Cooper argues that he cared less about the specifics and more about "his nation's commitment" in the communal peace effort. So, at the time of the conference, Wilson's actions refute Peyton's statement.
Delete-Jillian
I agree with Jill because in both of the pieces, the traits of both Woodrow Wilson and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge are disputed. In John M. Cooper, Jr.'s argument, it states the "...little credence to the sincerity and rationality of Lodge...(pg. 198)" and describes how Lodge was indeed flexible to despite common misconceptions. He states how "... He showed much greater flexibility than most interpreters have given him credit...(same page)." Cooper, then, describes two events including his dealings with Stephen Bonsal and the bipartisan speeches in early 1920. Though it refrains from speaking about the Lodge Reservations, addressed by William G. Carleton in his argument. He states the point that the Lodge Reservations by Lodge and the Republicans seemed to favor rejection, more than the goal of ratification. It displayed the true inflexibility of Lodge and provided more evidence as to the inflexibility of Lodge and his failure to compromise, rather than Wilson's. Carleton proves his point with seemingly more ease, through the Lodge Reservations's intransigent ways and like Jill stated, the evolution Wilson sought in the League. The Lodge Reservations and Lodge himself simply solidified the harsh inflexibility Wilson faced through the League and Treaty dispute.
DeleteDeanna
It is true that on page 196, Cooper mentions that because of racial, gendered and ethnic biases presented within the world, Wilson believed it was his job to spread Democratic and humanitarian ideals, and therefore saw the League as an element that was still evolving. He wanted the "living" League to grow in response to world wide issues, not just the ones presented along within the World War, trying to limit closed ideas in circumspect of his presidential program. But as described on page 196, he needed the League to evolve in order for him to find compromise possible. Because of his messianic qualities and his tampered neurological state, Wilson would not have compromised unless the League could devote itself to his ideas. "The only way to reconcile such sophisticated, self-critical arguments with messianism is to impute fantastic deviousness and insincerity to Wilson. This requires a psychological stretch that only a few of his worst enemies in te League fight were willing to make (last line of 196)." Because of his state of messianic characteristic, he was unable to form compromise with his "enemies" in the League who would not revolve their ideas around his.
DeleteIf the focus is being shifted to Wilson's neurological state, page 200 specifies what is to blame for Wilson's behavior in regard to his illness. Cooper presents the statement that "His condition rendered him incapable of compromise only partly because of stubbornness and self-righteousness and not at all from messianic delusions." Wilson's behavior is similar to an elderly person, they believe that due to the impressive age they have achieved, they know all and others are wrong and they will stubbornly cling to their beliefs, regardless of the validity.
DeletePeyton, I have to disagree with you here. Cooper is clearly against the idea of Wilson having any type of messianic characteristic, yet you are trying to prove that he intended differently. you used the quote, "The only way to reconcile such sophisticated, self-critical arguments with messianism is to impute fantastic deviousness and insincerity to Wilson. This requires a psychological stretch that only a few of his worst enemies in the league fight were willing to make" (196). another way of saying this quote is: the only way to view Wilson's arguments with messianism is to add unbelievable deviousness and insincerity to Wilson's traits as a person. A far-fetched idea that few of his enemies were desperate enough to make. Someone else could probably paraphrase it better, but i hope you get the idea. Saying that quote to prove his messianic qualities, even more so to prove that Cooper claimed Wilson to be messianic, is contradictory at best.
DeleteI too would have to disagree with you Peyton. In supporting Cooper's argument that Wilson was inable to compromise is false. Cooper argues that Wilson was unable to compromise due to holding high ideals and his physical condition. In Carleton's argument, he presents substantial evidence to show that Wilson had been able to compromise, such as mediating between agrarian liberals and conservatives within the Democratic Party. Historically, Wilson had to virtually give up most of his 14 points while in Europe to save his most desired points.
DeleteI also disagree with Peyton, and agree with Pat. Cooper speaks on the ideas of Wilson's messianic views and says, "so what?" Cooper concludes that this is not the cause of Wilson's failure, and that in fact Wilson's illness was.
DeleteThere have been many references to Cooper's claim that Wilson held "messianic views." Can anyone provide an explanation of what they think that term means based on the context, and if you think it is an accurate portrayal of Wilson's motives based on historical or text evidence? Would any information from Carleton's essay contradict the claim?
DeleteIn Cooper's essay, he describes "messianic views" as Wilson believing he alone had the capacity to save the world, Wilson being almost Godly.
DeleteYes - deriving from the root, "messiah," meaning savior of humanity. Traditionally the term would be used in the Christian tradition/church referring to Jesus as the Savior according to Christians' beliefs.
DeleteIn John M. Cooper's essay, He blames not so much Wilson, but his stroke and consequential actions for failure of the U.S to join the LON. Furthermore, he claims that it's this stroke bringing out his stubborn and self-righteous ways that caused him the inability compromise and not his supposed messianic ways, a concept that Cooper is truly opposed to. Using data from doctors, he concludes that he was unable to compromise due to that fact that the stroke brought his previously mentioned traits out and magnified them. However he does note that it's still Wilson's fault, medical issue or not, because a different person with different traits surely would have been effected differently. William G. Carleton on the other hand, rejects the idea of Wilson being to blame at all. He instead focuses on grousing about the incompetence of others in Wilson's time and does this for many a wasted page of paper, something that could have been put to a much better use. Does anyone else feel the same? the postscript mentioned his essay as an impassioned defense, but it was almost like he idolized him, to an irritating extent. I'd love to hear your opinions on this matter (here's your Que to answer and get one of your five posts done).
ReplyDelete-Pasquale Mingione V
To answer Pat's question, I do not agree that Carleton wasted paper in his argument. Instead, he seemed to take on a new perspective that Cooper didn't seem to see. Carleton simply used others such as Lodge not to go on "grousing about the incompetence of others", but to strengthen the idea that Wilson wasn't solely at fault, if even at fault at all. Pat does have a point in saying that Carleton's argument is a impassioned defense, but not because he idolized him. It isn't this that promoted Carleton's argument, but instead the fact that Wilson seems to this day, very misunderstood. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said in "Self-Reliance" that "to be great is to be misunderstood". Carleton simply sees this quality in Wilson and sought other perspectives using other people at fault like Lodge to prove the situation's difficulty that Wilson was faced with. In my opinion, it is all a matter of perspective and Carleton takes on a much different and seemingly less explored one than most standpoints.
DeleteDeanna
Ah, and if i didn't make my position clear enough, I support the idea of Wilson and his illness being to blame for the failure of the U.S to join the LON. As president it's important to understand how to compromise, especially with a two-party system like the kind the U.S has. Although it's forgivable due to Wilson's illness and the lack of medical knowledge at that time to help him, it's clear that his stubbornness resulted in the inability of the U.S to join the LON as according to Cooper's essay.
DeleteI agree with Pat's view on the piece published by William G. Carleton. Carleton seemed to have made the Republicans, especially Lodge, appear as if they were the antagonists in the League fight. For example, he presented Lodge as someone who did not look towards America's best interests with his Lodge Reservations. With Lodge's input, it seemed that America would not be able to join the League of Nations. Furthermore, he seemed to focus a great deal on how the "Wilsonian program" is used today, which I believe had alternative influencing factors other than Wilson himself. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was a waste of paper, but I do see how Wilson was romanticized in this excerpt.
DeleteIt does appear that Cooper constantly blames the stroke not exactly Wilson. Throughout the article, it continuously states that "Because of the stroke Wilson..." which is kind of irritating. Cooper believes that the "stroke-plagued Wilson" affected his personality and behavior therefore "rendering Wilson literally incapable of compromise". Wilson however understood the role that the United States would play in world affairs. Even with his stroke, Wilson knew what the best thing to do was. For example, he avoided the war with Mexico that many Americans wanted. By "cutting Huerta off from trade and arms while allowing the flow of arms to Carranza, Villa, and Zapata, he made possible the overthrow of the counter-revolution and the triumph of the Revolution". Wilson was criticized "for insisting that Latin Americans should be positively encouraged to institute reforms and develop democratic practices. Yet today Americans applaud the government's denial of the Alliance for Progress funds". This proves that despite the stroke,Wilson was able to make the decision he thought were the best and would benefit others. The reason that Carleton is comparing Wilson to others failure is just so that he can provide his support for Wilson. For example, the author wanted to show how Wilson had "balance of power" by mentioning TR and FDR. Also to prove that the charges against Wilson were false, Carleton compared to Elihu Root, Philander Knox, TR, and Henry Lodge.
DeleteTo answer Pat's question, in a way, Carleton did idolize Wilson as a historical figure. He ranks Wilson as one of the nation's top three presidents. Carleton, near the end of his essay, begins to stray away from the topic of the League of Nations and focus more upon Wilson's successes. Carleton argues that the US is still a Wilsonian program, having an international collective security, allowing for self-determination in nations, anti-colonialism, and the lowering of economic barriers.
DeleteI too, noticed this Austin. Do you think that Cooper does this to prove that it wasn't Wilson's fault, but the people around him? Or do you think he is simply trying to defend Wilson, and running out of ways to do that?
DeleteI do agree with Pat, Jess, and Austin in an extend in regards of how it seems that Carleton "idolize" Wilson. It seem that his essay is a bit biased. However Pat commented about how it Carleton seemed to wasted many pages of paper writing about the "incompetence of others in Wilson's time". Then I can argue the same for Cooper. I can say he, likewise, wasted many pages on the psychological side of Wilson. He wrote on pg. 125 that "Wilson emerged from his childhood with a severely damaged ego and unresolved oedipal conflict." He wrote that, but he never explained what even happened in his childhood, nor explained his ego. I don't see anything wrong with Wilson's ego. He wrote quite a bit about how "Woodrew Wilson's alleged messianism", which is a religious belief in a savior or redeemer. However from my viewing, Wilson never saw himself as a messiah, but rather just did the things he did because he believed it was right. Thus, without fulling explaining what he meant by damaged ego or Wilson's messianism, Cooper also "wasted pages" like how Pat said Carleton did.
DeleteI agree Pat, that Carelton produced an almost vague and one sided agreement pertaining to the fact that Wilson, I believe, is to blame. Carelton presents the idea of surrounding corruption around the unstable Wilson, trying to state that even though it's proven through the medical evaluation presented in Coopers piece, Wilson and his mental state and messianic characteristics weren't to blame. Out of the two essays, I believe Cooper had written the more persuading and knowledge containing argument rather then Carelton who forced all blame on surrounding influences including Lodge and Root. But, back to what Pat had said about the stroke provoking his stubborn qualities, in order for those to be enhanced through this medically traumatizing event, Wilson would have had to already present most of these characteristics. As for his messianic traits, these are definitely evident from his childhood and not just the stroke, since in Coopers piece it states that he was a product of his own culture - growing up as Anglo-American Protestant middle class.
ReplyDeleteThis question is for anyone, do you think that Carleton's use of Lodge, Root, and others was simply to show his admiration for Wilson through scapegoats or to attempt to gain a new perspective on Wilson's role compared to others?
Delete-Deanna
I'm glad you agree, on the subject of Carelton's writings, with me. I also agree to the fact that Wilson also had stubborn qualities present in him all along, in the text book and in class we've mentioned that he may even have been our most idealistic president at that time, due to his teaching and scholarly background. he saw the way he wanted things, what he thought was right, and this along with his meager political background could make him hard to compromise with (especially after his stroke). As far as him having messianic traits I'd have to disagree. Jill mentioned it under your comment, but this being under a different comment and the quote she used being ever-pertinent, I'll restate it. "His condition rendered him incapable of compromise only partly because of stubbornness and self-righteousness and not at all from messianic delusions." (page 200)
DeleteBut I guess going back and re looking towards Coopers argument, he also had written a contradictory piece as within the first pages he writes that Wilson broke the hear of the world, but then concluded that he didnt; stated that his messianic characteristics were to blame, but then again stated that they werent. I guess Deanna's idea of perception applys to this concept as I strongly believe that Wilson, stroke or not, was unable of compromise and was to blame, but I can understand the opposing point of views.
DeleteIn reply to Deanna's question I think the answer is neither. Carleton seems to have difficulty trying to prove his point in which Wilson is perfect. So in attempt to salvage his point he uses Lodge, Root, and others as scapegoats. Taking parts of persons or their actions that are convenient for him, he tries to juxtapose Wilson with a crowd of supposedly flawed persons and all their wrongdoings. you could even say that I think he did this out of incompetence. (Note: this comment was originally a lot longer and had more analysis, however due to the Blogspot deleting said reply this will have to suffice). -Pat (HA! it tried to do it again but i had copied my reply this time!)
DeleteTo answer Deanna's question, I do see how the use of Lodge and Root was to gain a new perspective, although I also believe that Carleton blamed a lot of the League fight on them. He opened up new perspectives by showing that Wilson had tried to look out for America's best interests because he had realized that the League of Nations would not be accepted with the creation of the Loge Reservations. Furthermore, Carleton made it seem like Lodge (and others) were the ones who were unable to compromise because the League of Nations would not have lived through any concessions they were willing to make.
DeleteTo answer Dee's question, I think that Carleton used the other's to show his admiration for Wilson. I also agree with Pat that the author attempted to use the Lodge, Root, and the others as scapegoats. Carleton appeared to have difficulty proving his point (still agree with him though) so he used the failure of Lodge and Roosevelt ability to become "aware of the implications for world politics of the technological revolution" and so on. The only way to really support Wilson who, "with amazing clarity saw the new, elements in world politics" was to use Lodge, Root, and Roosevelt failures to make Wilson seem like the perfect leader.
DeleteIn essence, I believe that Carleton used the other historical figures, especially Lodge, to display how they corrupted the US involvement in the League of Nations. Carleton criticizes the Lodge Reservations made to the league ultimately "emasculated the league" that Wilson had envisioned. Carleton refuses to acknowledge the Republican standpoint by solely focusing upon Wilson's leadership and goals.
DeleteAustin, are you saying here that it was not Wilson's fault but the people around him that resulted in the failure of US involvement in the League of Nations? Personally, this is what I think. When Cooper describes Wilson as "too far ahead of his time" I believe that proves that it was clearly the people around him who were unable to keep up with Wilsons "broader perspective" ideals.
DeleteJack, Cooper does first argue Wilson being too ahead of his time, but then Wilson's illness crumbles these pivotal ideals, making Wilson incapable of compromise. I believe that everything together can contribute to the failure of compromise. Like you compared the situation to WWI, I think Wilson's illness can relate to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. The illness was the last rock on the scale, causing the whole thing to tip over.
DeleteI agree with Dee. A related argument also focused on another factor. Versus solely blaming the president for being "ahead of time," the rest of America is targeted. On page 200, Cooper states, "...Americans were not ready after World War 1 to make a full-scale commitment to collective security and international enforcement..." Wilson is not the only force that resulted in the failure, in part because the president is not the only force in our nation that has a say, this is a democracy, not a dictatorship. While Wilson did act somewhat independently, it is some of those at home who disagreed and, in a communal effort, led to failure. Both points are arguable on their own, but together, the factors led to the failure.
ReplyDeleteThe point that Jill makes goes to prove the more credible points of Carleton and how his argument is better because it encompasses the American identity. Democracy is really what defines America and if we blame one for the fault of many than it defies this ideal. The blame of many shouldn't solely fall on the president because America has never had a dictator that could make all the decisions for the country. If we have faults, we make them, as we made them in the past, as a whole. Some people may have more of a foot in the failure than others, but Carleton sees that the blame can't fall on the misunderstood Wilson alone. The American identity stems from group decisions, group votes, and group successes, so shouldn't the failures be held to this standard as well? To do this is to cause a double standard in which the successes fall on the whole of the people, but failures simply on one. Carleton was able to exploit this and argue it through his essay, which truly makes it more masterful.
Delete-Deanna
I agree with Jill and Dee. Wilson should not be solely blamed for the failure for there were other factors involved. When Wilson had a stroke during his campaign, he stayed at the White House and became a rather inactive president. Lodge ended up becoming involved with the Treaty of Versailles and he added amendments to make changes. At that point, Lodge was for the Treaty and Wilson was against it showing how Lodge's changes impacted the failure. Those at home did disagree with the treaty including many Republicans.
DeleteCarleton shows the harshness Wilson faced in this regard based off of questions he attempted to answer such as: "what are the common errors and misrepresentations with respect to Wilson? In what ways is he being judged more rigorously? What are the reasons for this? (Pg. 205)". In these questions, the standpoint of being misunderstood as a leader can be found as well as the double standard I spoke of previously.
DeleteI think there is also something to be said here about Wilson being "ahead of his time". It was mentioned that America was not ready for his policies and ideas until after WWII. It was also mentioned that his policies of military and civilian mobilization were later borrowed by FDR, "FDR, in his New Deal and in his World War II agencies, was to borrow heavily from the Wilson innovations. (209)" So maybe, in addition to not being to blame for the failure of America to join the league, he was actually right in approaching it with an "all or nothing" attitude, and Americans just did not recognize it until later. It seems clear to me that the Republicans didn't care to pass the treaty at all, as it was never resurrected after they won the presidency.
DeleteTo answer Deanna's question, I do believe Carelton presented Lodge and Root to blame because of his admiration for Wilson and to also provide scapegoats to explain for not only Wilson's actions and disabilities, but also to force the blame from Democratic to Republican reasoning. Carelton obviously idolizes Wilson, and seems to be presented as a Democrat based on his admiration and sheer support for the mentally disabled president. So this can be also shown as not only a factual debate but a Political, as Carelton seemingly shoved blame to Republicans absolutely all blame away form the Democratic president.
ReplyDeleteIn Carleton's essay he looks at the criticisms of Wilson: his inability to compromise and no real understanding of world politics. Throughout the essay he uses evidence to prove that those criticisms are wrong like Wilson's Peace Without Victory Speech proves that he did have an understanding of world politics. In Cooper's essay he takes a different turn and looks at the interpretations schools made about Wilson and they evidence those schools used: Wilson was ahead of his time, after WWI Americans weren't ready to make the commitment to collective security and international enforcement, and it took WWII to drive home lessons Wilson had tried to teach. In this essay he states the different interpretations and explains their flaws like the interpretation doesn't "square" with the facts of the fight, referring to the league fight. I believe that Cooper had the better argument, not because Carleton wasted paper explaining his side, but because Cooper took evidence already given to the world and explained it further and corrected the errors yet still helping to prove that Wilson was responsible for the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations.
ReplyDeleteNo one here really appreciates my radical statement, do they? I need Jack to come back me up, It really was a waste of paper.
DeleteIn my opinion, anyone's standpoint isn't truly a waste of paper. That is your perspective, which I respect in high regard, but to say a point is so invalid as to be called a "waste of paper" isn't the fault of the writer, instead it is simply a fault in your mind set to see father than one side of the perspective. To truly understand both arguments, the reader has to keep an open mind.
DeleteThat was to Pat, by the way, sorry!
Delete-Deanna
I agree with Pat that Carleton's essay was in a way, a waste of paper because there was a significant amount of repetition. There were strong points however, for example, his explanation of the Lodge Reservations having a role in the failure of joining the LoN, but overall, Carleton's arguments were not as strong as Cooper's. Carleton's arguments seemed to me like interpretations, rather than direct evidence that Wilson had nothing to do with failing to join the LoN. On the other hand, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
DeleteI also agree with you Pat. Carleton doesn't really back up his points, and each point seems as though it is more of an opinion, while Cooper takes both sides into consideration to develop his argument. I agree that Carleton could have argued his point in a better way, rather than just defending Wilson.
DeleteQ: In your opinion, overall would you categorize the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations as a domino effect, using many factors that are presented by both historians, or like a skydive, the fall of a major figure, solely the president's internal and external conflicts? Which is the most correct assessment, or the most significant argument?
ReplyDeleteTo answer Jill's question, I believe that the domino effect best fits the situation of the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations. As stated in Cooper's essay it was not only Wilson's health that prevented compromise or the ratification of the league, but also the inability for Americans to accept this alliance since older presidents like George Washington warned America to stay out of "entangling alliances." Americans didn't want to get involved in that type of alliance along with the fact that they shouldn't get involved European affairs as said in the Monroe Doctrine. The domino affect characterizes this best because Wilson was not the only factor that caused the failure.
DeleteAt the risk of being repetitive, I would categorize the failure of United States to be more so like a domino effect. Though, when I picture this downfall I think of a political cartoon, where the disputes of a few of the elite politicians provide the push to start the outcome of a fall amongst all the dominos. This dispute was more than just the wrongdoings of Wilson, but the Lodge Reservations and there inflexible ways to compromise as well. I can see the argument of both sides, though I see how Wilson can't be the only one blamed for starting the downfall. His unwillingness to compromise during illness proven by Weinstein and Link, is reciprocated by Lodge and the Republicans as Carleton says "... The reservations had become more numerous and crippling... There was simply no appeasing Lodge. (206)". This displays the other perspective that the illness of Wilson and reciprocation of Republican stubbornness brought about the domino effect, not solely a skydive of the president.
Delete-Deanna
To answer Jill's question and to add to Hali's argument
DeleteQuestion: Reguarding the opposing viewpoints presented in both of the Essays, do you believe each opinion presented by the authors was because of political connection, admiration, factual evidence or belief in a standpoint?
ReplyDelete-We all seem to be doing the same things the authors are doing, and that is put our belief completely behind one of the authors, rather then the identification of World complications and a multitude of ideas and or people that led to failure. I am not saying I wasn't doing it too, even though I still believe Wilson was a majority of the cause of failure, it can be seen that this debate is almost what could have occured during Wilson's presidential period: Follow Wilson vs. its all his fault. I believe that this collective argument could have added to the strife of the American nation in reguards to the World War as it was occuring, correlating to political standpoints of individuals and ideas.
I believe that for Cooper, the opinion presented was based more on factual evidence. When discussing the effects of Wilson's stroke on his ability to compromise, Cooper uses evidence from Edwin Weinstein and Arthur Link, trained neurologists, saying that, "'Cerebrovascular accidents,' especially ones such as Wilson suffered, have an antecedent pathogy, which often includes 'small strokes' and which, even without those, often affects the victim's personality and behavior. (199)" This takes the admiration or belief in a standpoint out of the question, because these facts could be applied to anyone with a stroke similar to Wilson's, not just Wilson. Cooper discusses exactly how a stroke would affect his ability to make decisions by backing it up with facts.
DeleteCarleton seemed to be clearly based on admiration. He clearly states his personal opinion on Wilson, "In my own evaluation, I place Wilson along with Jefferson and Lincoln as the nation's three greatest Presidents, which makes Wilson our greatest twentieth-century President. (209)" Although he incorporates political connections, it seems that all of his arguments stem from his personal belief that Wilson was the best 20th century President.
[I said something similar to this at the bottom of the page, but I'll somewhat repeat]: Peyton, you said that "Wilson was a majority of the cause of failure." However even after Wilson's death because of the stroke, the U.S still failure to compromise and to join the League of Nations. Even without Wilson's opposition to the Reservations and without him constantly pressuring the Democrats to not sign the treaty with the Reservations attached on to the them ("All-or-Nothing"), the Americans still faced failure. So then if I'm saying that EVEN WITHOUT Wilson, there was failure, then how can you blame him for the failure?
DeleteQ: On page 209 of Carleton's essay, he states "In my own evaluation, I place Wilson...our greatest twentieth-century President." Do you believe that by adding his own opinion, Carleton takes away some of the credibility of his essay?
ReplyDeleteI can agree with Kelly as to the idea that Carelton's credibility was lacking, as well as his factual evidence, rather then political strife and admiration. If he had medical records or even a note from both political parties of the time rather then just his own, I believe this would have been a more reliable and creditable source.
DeleteI believe in this response that Peyton has a valid point, but is also being hypocritical to the repsponse to her own question, which states that we all are putting our faith behind one side or the other too much. Your comments are more in favor of Cooper, which it is only natural to pick a side, but we should also remember that these prideful ideals can cloud our minds into not seeing fault in our own ideals. You fail to see how Cooper also never mentions such importance as the Lodge Reservations, at least not in detail. In this way you are giving a double standard, where Cooper's article does this as well and sides more in favor with the Republicans, but you are only criticizing the Democratic ideals of Carleton's article. Carleton's article also includes points that Cooper's doesn't such as the League of Nations being "... The forerunner of the United Nations... (210)", an exceptionally important organization of today. I'm not saying that what you are stating isn't true, but all I am saying is that your statement can also work in reverse.
Delete-Deanna
I agree with Peyton's point of view, but we also have to remember that these two authors are taking biases in order to support their side. However, I also do believe that Carleton may have exceeded his limits with his idolized portrayal of Wilson. In addition to Kelly's quote, Carleton goes on to say, "If rated solely on the basis of long-range impact on international relations, Wilson is the most influential of all out Presidents (209)." All in all, I do believe that statements like these took away from the credibility of Carleton's essay.
DeleteI also agree with Kelly, I think that by Carleton bringing in personal opinion, he throws off his entire argument. This personal opinion suggests a bias view, which is not ideal when arguing a point. It would have been better for Carleton to back up his ideas with evidence and acknowledge the opposing side, such as Cooper did.
DeleteI believe this to be true, because throughout his essay, William G. Carleton focused on Wilson's accomplishments, such as the Peace Without Victory Speech, which showed that Wilson understood the "balance of power" (208) and the Treaty of Versailles. Carleton focused too much on idolizing Wilson like Jessica said, rather than on the role Wilson played in attempting to join the LoN, which overall made his arguments seem less credible.
DeleteGenerally, I agree with the previous statements that Carleton's use of his own opinions detracted from the credibility of the source. It did not have an authentic, informational tone that Cooper's had. However, he was able to back up a few of his arguments with facts. For example, Carelton refutes the statement made about Wilson being a naive idealist by saying, "He recognized the emergence of the anti-imperialist revolutions... the importance of social politics in the international relations of the future... the implications for future world politics of the technological revolutions in war, and the disintegration of the old balance of power." This evidence refutes a critical statement by exemplifying his awareness of other global affairs. In summary, to answer Kelly's question, while the professional quality of Carelton's piece was lacking, he did argue several of his arguments successfully with examples of historical instances and quotes. His work in comparison to Cooper's is in my opinion, the lesser of the two, but it is invalid to say he has absolutely no worth (Also in response to Pat's previous statement.)
DeleteI do not think putting in your own opinion it takes away credibility. Each essay is based on the authors opinion on wether or not it was wilsons fault. It is an essay based on opinion. So you can't take away credibility for that. But Carleton doesn't really back up his opinion with facts, that does take away credibility, bot his opinion but his lack of support for his opinion. If It did take away dredibily than all these comments lose their credibility also because our comments are our opinions.
DeleteSo basically Kelly, you're saying every time in the comments that we say "I think" or something like that it takes away our arguments credibility?
DeleteI agree with Jack and Nik that if this was the case, then my point that I am writing currently wouldn't be valid. As long as you have evidence, having your opinion want make that fact any less true. The author has to take a stand point or else, the book wouldn't be entitled "Taking Sides". Adding opinion, brings the controversy that the book thrives on. Like Jack said, without opinion we wouldn't be able to have this discussion, and having opinion doesn't make the facts any less true, but instead, in my opinion, strengthens them by bringing a personal touch to the argument.
DeleteI remember that when I was reading Carleton's essay, I was rather shocked to see him write that because I remember learning to not put "I's" in your writing. <<If you see right there in the sentence before, there are five "I's". While I do agree that being personal in your writing may lead others to believe that you are biased towards a particular topic and thus your writing to be unreliable, talking about your personal opinion or your personal experiences is much more persuasive to the readers than 10 pages of facts. And since this is a "Taking Sides" article where the writer is trying to persuade to his or her side, I do think it was okay for Carleton to include some of his personal opinions on Wilson. Of course, it is to an extend.
DeleteCorrection: "trying to persuade THE AUDIENCE to his or her side..."
DeleteDoes anyone else agree? ^
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Carleton,the addition of his own opinions takes away some of the credibility of his essay.It sounds very biased saying that "In my own evaluation..." It makes it seem childish that a historian would include his own opinions with "I think..." and therefore defeat the purpose of his essay. For example on 206 Carleton states,"Those who read them for the first time will be surprised, I think, to discover how nationally self-centered they were". It makes him seem almost uncertain and hesitant about his thoughts.
DeleteI agree with Victoria's argument that the credibility of Carleton's essay was lessened once he started using his own oipinions. After adding such opinions such as that seen on page 209, "In my own opinion...", he clearly shows his bias in the debate. After realizing how biased the essay is, one must reconsider many of the facts and supporting arguments that Carleton provided, looking for a bias in them as well. The essay no longer is a reliable source about one side of the debate when it is essentially one author's opinion.
DeleteThis is an interesting discussion about the credibility of an author's argument when the author specifically references his or her "opinion", as such instead of an "argument." Realizing that all historians have opinions (including students of history; we just call those opinions a thesis), is there truly a lack of credibility in Carleton's argument simply because he references his opinion? Does he back up that opinion with credible details, such as Wilson's progressive reform achievements? Let's see if we can move from the idea of an opinion to the content of the argument (whether we call it an opinion or not). Or, was Pat correct in stating that his argument was really just a "waste of paper?"
DeleteCarleton does back up his opinion of placing Wilson as one of the nation's three greatest presidents by including his progressive reform achievements. Wilson refused to recognize the "counter-revolution of Huerta and cut Huerta off from trade and arms while allowing the flow to Carranza, Villa, and Zampata" making possible the overthrow of the counter revolution and "the triumph of the Revolution". Wilson's 14 points "thrilled the world" and stirred the Allied countries war efforts. This resulted in them bringing unrest and overthrew the Sultan, Hapsburgs, and the Hohenzollerns as well as brought an end to the war.
DeleteVictoria, you bring up some an interesting point about Wilson's missionary diplomacy in Mexico. Which makes me wonder....Peyton brought up some text evidence from Cooper's essay. She said,
Delete"on page 196, Cooper mentions that because of racial, gendered and ethnic biases presented within the world, Wilson believed it was his job to spread Democratic and humanitarian ideals". We know that Wilson was indeed racist: he resegregated the federal civil service, refused to acknowledge Ho Chi Minh's plea for Vietnamese (Indochina) independence from France, and loved the pro-KKK film, Birth of a Nation.
Does anyone think Wilson's racial biases influenced his decision to intervene in Mexico?
Does anyone think Wilson's racial biases influenced his beliefs about the role of the United States and/or the League of Nations in an idealized, war-free world? For example, did he envision white nations leading nonwhite nations, like progressive/imperialist leaders did? Kind of a more subtle white-man's burden?
To answer the last focus question, I believe that Cooper had a better argument than Carleton. Copper appeared to have used scientific reasoning (in a sense) to support why Wilson was unable to compromise which ultimately led to the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations. He stated on page 198 that Lodge and Root gave principled objections to Wilson's program and that the Democrats bowed to Wilson's dictation against their better judgment. However due to his stroke, Wilson was unable to compromise since the "cerebrovascular accidents" often include smaller strokes which affect the victim's personality and behavior. Therefore, Wilson was not able to accept peace without victory. On the other hand Carleton had idolized Wilson and believed that he was one of America's top presidents. He blamed part of the failure of the addition of the United States in the League on persons such as Lodge and Root. Furthermore, he tended to use an abundance of other examples to support Wilson's greatness and used the future (in regards to the time after the League fight) to support the past. Carleton had romanticized the portrayal of Wilson which I believe provided a less strong argument in comparison to Cooper.
ReplyDeleteJohn M. Cooper, the author of essay one, wrote about the two "schools" created regarding the opinions and interpretations of President Woodrow Wilson. School one was focused on the cultural, psychological aspects, while school two was primarily focused on "circumstantial and and physiological" (195) aspects. School one also believed that Wilson was ahead of his time, while school two believed the people around him in government did not keep up with Wilson's policies and actions during his presidency. Also, Cooper focused on the stroke Woodrow Wilson had while in office, which was a strong reason to why the United States was unable to join the League of Nations. In the second essay written by William G. Carleton, Carleton did not blame Wilson for the failure to join the LoN, but instead, Carleton blamed those around Wilson, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, who wrote the Lodge Reservations. Carleton included that Canada's President at the time claimed that "if this Reservation were accepted by the other powers Canada would withdraw from the League." (207). Carleton's explanations regarding how the "inabilities" of Wilson created a strong argument, however, I believe John M. Cooper had a better argument because he was more developed in the evidence he used, and explained the downfall of Wilson due to illness thoroughly, holding Wilson responsible for the U.S. not joining the LoN.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both authors' reasoning work hand in hand to contribute to the loss of the "League fight." As with many instances in US history, it is not just one event that leads to something happening or not happening. For example, the cause WW1 wasn't just the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but a rising importance of Alliances and Militarism. Applying to Wilson and the League fight, it wasn't just Wilson's poor ability to comprises and his idealist views, and of course along with his stroke, but also the inability of Wilson's government to keep pace with Wilson and his policies.
Delete-Dwight Eisenhower
Thomas - You are correct in your analysis of Cooper's argument - that Wilson's stroke and subsequent personality changes made it nearly impossible for him to accept compromise (ie. the Treaty with the Lodge Reservations). But do you think the Treaty would have worked with the Lodge Reservations, or were those reservations designed specifically to ensure that the other signatory nations (Canada, as you mentioned, or Ireland, for example) would not accept? Certainly Wilson's health played a role (anyone with an elderly relative who has suffered a stroke can attest that strokes can lead to serious personality changes including stubbornness) but was his opposition partially a result of his knowledge about the potential effects of the Lodge Reservations on the future he envisioned would come out of the Treaty and the League?
DeleteI agree with Thomas, Cooper developed his evidence more thoroughly. Cooper explains that after Wilson's stroke there was no room for compromise and like Wilson wanted it was all or nothing with the League of Nations. On page 200 it says "His condition rendered him incapable of compromise only partly because of stubbornness and self-righteousness and not at all from messianic decisions." This shows that Wilson's condition was a major part of the decision of the League fight, but that other reasons were also a factor like that Wilson was far ahead of his time. Overall, Cooper went into more detail and had more evidence than Carleton who, claimed by many in this discussion, wasted paper in writing his essay.
DeleteI do believe the treaty would have worked with the Lodge Reservations, however, since certain nations such as Canada and Ireland threatened to leave if the Reservations were accepted, the world powers did not want to lose these nations. Also, Wilson's knowledge that these other powers would withdraw as a result of the Lodge Reservations may have influenced his opposition because on page 196, Cooper wrote, "the League marked only the indication of the direction and the beginning of the journey toward a more jst and peaceful world." If countries such as Canada and Ireland threatened to leave, how would there be a first step towards a more peaceful world? The League would need to include as many countries as possible in order to begin in the direction of peace.
DeleteI think that Carleton made the better argument. He included others failures and incomplete actions to show that Wilson was not solely at fault and to also bring admiration towards him. As you continue to read Carleton's passage, he includes Wilson's progressive reform achievements to show that he knew the role the United States would play.Cooper primarily focuses on the president's stroke which was not the only factor involved in the failure. We can not blame Wilson because of his stroke which made him "unable to compromise". Is the stroke really to blame? Wouldn't you think that others in the government would help the president if he was actually "physically disabled" and had a changed in personality/behavior because of the stroke? He knew what he was signing up for and he was well aware of the role of the U.S.
DeleteIn the first argument made by Cooper, he states that the failure of the League of Nations was in fact on the account of President Wilson. Cooper brings three points to the reader's attention, all basically saying the same thing, that Wilson was ahead of his time. Cooper speaks about Wilson's judged pivotal role as a president and how without him, the idea of the League would not have even arose. He also adds that this League would have ended in a compromise, if Wilson were not president. By doing this, Cooper takes both positives and negatives into consideration, in total looking at the "big picture". Cooper then introduces the argument on Wilson's messianic views saying this is not the cause of failure. Cooper says, "so what? Where else except from his own cultural background was Wilson going to get his ideas about world order?"(p. 196) . With this statement, Cooper rules out Wilson's messianic views being the root of failure. Cooper then brings up Wilson's illness. He explains the illness on page 199, saying, ""Cerebrovascular accidents,"... often affects the victim's personality and behavior" (p 199) with this and Wilson's aging, it was an equation for disaster. The product of this equation is Wilson "operating at a level far below his best standard of performance in the White House"(199) Cooper states that Wilson's stroke made him unable to compromise, ultimately pinning the failure on Wilson but more specifically his illness. In this case, I agree with Cooper. Cooper looks at both sides of everything and draws his own conclusions, while Carleton seems to have a bias toward Wilson and is defending him rather than making points. Carleton fails to really address his understanding of opposing points, but just sort of fights in Wilson's honor, making for a sub-par argument.
ReplyDeleteThough I do agree with Emma that Cooper does make the better argument, I think that it is sometimes necessary to not always look at the "Big Picture" as Cooper does in fact do. I believe that Cooper makes Wilson seem like a king, making decisions on his own, with no influence around him at all. Carleton makes the point in his essay that Wilson had both conservatives and liberals to help him make decisions, often "leaning left, then right, then left again." This seems to be overlooked by Cooper, as he simply focuses on Wilsons illness. Call me Carleton for defending Wilson, but I jusr don't think it was solely Wilsons fault for not getting into the League of Nations.
DeleteJack - who else deserves blame for the failure of the Treaty? Does Wilson deserve some?
DeleteTo answer the last focus question, I too agree that Cooper had a stronger argument than Carleton did. Cooper, as previously stated above, argues that Wilson had three main psychological flaws. Number one was that his readings in support of the league made it difficult to sustain allegation of messianism. Number two states that the league resembled the biblical parable of the mote and beam. Lastly, number three was the downgrading of psychological factors. Cooper also argues, on page 194, that Wilson was ahead of his time, Americans were not ready to make a commitment to an entangling alliance system, and World War 2 was needed to show the importance of Wilson's goals. Wilson was indeed ahead of his time, seeing how a treaty organization was organized after World War 2 in NATO. At that time, Americans were prepared to enter such a treaty. Carleton, on the other hand, idolizes Wilson as being one of the nation's top presidents. He completely blames figures such as Lodge for the failure of the league. He does not take any psychological factors or Wilson's illness into hand. That is why I believe Cooper had a much better argument than Carleton.
DeleteJack, Wilson deserves some blame for the failure of the treaty, due to his inability to be physically present at the vote, due to his stroke. Wilson, as well as being physically inable, was psychology inable to perform, due to go,ding such high ideals. The Republicans are also to blame, such as Lodge with his reservations.
Delete*holding
DeleteOf course I agree with you Austin and Mrs. Dag that Wilson deserves some blame, but I believe it was more his inability to compromise than his physically being unable. Are we really going to blame him for having a stroke?
DeleteI agree with jack. You can't blame someon for something they can't control. He couldn't control him having a stoke
DeleteI agree with Jack and Nik. Wilson's illness definitely had a large impact on Wilson's inability to compromise and the failure of the United Staes to join the League of Nations. However, it wasn't just his physical inability. Having the stroke impacted his behavior and personal traits. I think that for many, the stroke is a kind of scapegoat, where people can palce the blame on Wilson for the failure of the U.S to join the League of Nations.
DeleteYes Kelly that's the word I wanted to use-- scapegoat. I feel that some overlook his complete inability to compromise and his governments failure to keep up.
DeleteQ: On page 200 Cooper states, "a different person would have reacted differently to an illness like this," which means that the stroke could have had a different effect on Wilson than others intended. This also implies that Wilson was still at fault for the failure of the United Sates to join the League of Nations and that it could not be blamed entirely on the stroke. In your opinion, to what extent did the stroke influence Wilson's actions?
ReplyDeleteQ: After reading both essays by John M. Cooper and William G. Carleton, did your opinion regarding if Wilson was at fault for the U.S. not joining the League of Nations change? Why? (In other words, did your opinion before reading change after both essays were read?)
ReplyDeleteTo answer the third focus question, I feel that Carleton's argument was better than Cooper's because he had overall better substantial evidence and examples to support his statement. Cooper's main support for his view was from Wilson's stroke that had paralyzed his body and as Jessica commented, he was unable to compromise because of "cerebrovascular activities." According to Healthline.com, cerebrovascular activities has many symptoms including the difficulty to speak and/or the ability to understand someone else. With this knowledge, I can understand why Wilson was not able to compromise but blaming him for the whole failure is too absurd. Wilson understood the role America would play in world affairs, as Carleton stated, and he would travel to persuade the American citizens to support him as well. Wilson was not the only one who supported the League of Nations, so why was he the center of blame? Was it because many truly felt that he was at fault or did they have no one else to blame?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tenzin that Wilson was not the only person to blame for the failure of compromise, but I disagree that Carleton's argument was better. Cooper cited evidence from trained neurologists that strokes of the type that Wilson had typically magnify personality traits, making it entirely possible that it affected his ability to compromise. Also, yes, Wilson was not the only one who supported the League of Nations, but many Democratic senators blindly followed him and voted for the League just because, "few of them had any stomach for questioning the leadership of their only president to win reelection since Andrew Jackson. (199)" In addition, the fact that Carleton tried to argue his point without addressing in great detail Wilson's health issues shows that using them as an argument could disprove his point.
DeleteTo support my view, Cooper states, "Wilson emerged from his childhood with a severely damaged ego and unresolved oedipal conflict. Further, those maladjustments bred in him messianic delusions and compulsions toward figuratively mortal conflicts with father figures (195)." He refutes his own statement to some degree because his original argument was that Wilson caused the failure because of his own stroke, but Cooper states in this quotation that he grew up with factors that possibly could have caused the stroke to happen. On the other hand, Carleton actually sticks to his viewpoint. "He [Wilson] recognized the emergence of anti-imperialistic revolutions...the implications of future world politics...Wilson is the most influential of all our Presidents (208-209)." Carleton is biased, which some may say is a negative aspect, but his strong opinion persuades the reader to agree with him in some degree.
Delete^This is an attachment to my focus question answer
DeleteQ: On page 210, Carleton argues that Wilson deserves a "superlative place in history" and "articulated the ideology which was the polestar of the Western democracies in World War 1, in World War 2, and in the decades of Cold War against the Communists." Do you believe these claims to be true?
ReplyDeleteI do believe these to be true. I think a very overlooked part of Wilsons presidency is how much room he left for improvement for the country. As Cooper said "his insistence left room for growth" and that proved true, because though the U.S. couldn't join the League, Wilson set the stage, and now we have a United Nations.
DeleteQuestion: In both essays the authors claim that Wilson is one of the greatest presidents, yet they both have different opinions on whether or not Wilson is responsible for the failure of United States to join the League of Nations. Do you think that this affects how credible the no source is since he agrees with Cooper that Wilson is one of the greatest presidents and that his essay is a waste of paper?
ReplyDeleteYou have stated that both authors agree on the fact that Wilson was a great president, but disagree on if he was or was not the blame of the failure of the U.S to join the League of Nations. I think this does not at all impact the credibility of the no source because they are opinionated and biased, not making up evidence and examples. No essay is a waste of paper. An essay is writing your opinions, no matter how biased, and distributing support to your claim. Even if the no source was not credible at all, it doesn't closely relate to the views they have.
DeleteTenzin, to clarify, both authors agree that Wilson was a great president. Why would the no source think he was one of the greatest presidents if he failed at getting America involved in the League? I realize that Wilson has passed policies and done other actions like during the war that make him a great president, but Carleton claims he failed at one of his biggest policies, so how does he still believe that he is one of the greatest presidents?
DeleteTo answer Hali's question, to my understanding both authors percieved him in a different way, that could both conclude to agreeing on Wilson being one of the greatest presidents ever. Cooper summerizes his thoughts on Wilson, besides his part in the failure of the LON, that he was in turn a successful president, "ahead of his time" with many great ideas within his 14 points, and also even states that he is within the most memorable presidents along side Lincoln and Roosevelt. Cooper states on page 195, that without Wilson, someone else would have taken his place, "A less bold and visionary leader--one who was not ahead of his or her time--would not have attempted to do so much." So even though Wilson contributed to America's lack of participation in the League fight, it is safe to say that he overall still played a huge role in the nations progression. Then as for Carleton, he states on 209, "Ranking the Presidents has become a popular game...In my own evaluation, I place Wilson along with Jefferson and Lincoln as the nation's three greatest Presidents.." Yet again here the issue with Carleton's "I" statements comes back, but on this topic, both authors can agree that Wilson was still one of the most influential presidents of the 20th century.
DeleteOn the topic of it being a waste of paper, (I believe I may have already commented on this) Carleton's summary was repetitive and could, let it be said, "shortened" to "preserve" paper
Hali, Wilson was the one that brought up the whole League of Nations idea in the first place. Even if he failed at it or not, the no source still thought that he was a great president because he thought of something like that to create opportunities for the U.S. to create a role for America in international relations.
DeleteThe central argument of Cooper is that Wilson was not in a good condition to be making this decision. He repeatedly talks about Wilson's "psychological flaws". "Clearly, the weightiest circumstance of all was that Wilson was not the healthiest of leaders during the League fight (Cooper 199)." Cooper believes that Wilson wasn't in a state where he could make a good decision on important topics. He also discusses how Wilson's stroke greatly affected his quality of work, "...Wilson was operating at a level far below his best standard of performance...(199)" His whole argument is based on Wilson's mental state and his ability to perform at his best. Carleton believes that this wasn't Wilson's fault however. He spends the bulk of his essay praising Wilson and even calling him "our greatest twentieth-century president (Carleton 209)." He does little to prove why it wasn't his fault and who's fault it actually was. So I believe that Cooper makes the much better argument that it was his fault.
ReplyDeleteThat beaut
I tried to allude to the "greatest twentieth century president" claim before but I don't think it went through. Though, as most of you are aware, I do not blame Wilson fully for US failure to be in the League of Nations, he is not our greatest twentieth century president. That is measured by how the Commander and Chief acts in time of vulnerability in America, (ie JFK and the Cuban Missle Crisis) Wilson, did not act accordingly in this time of great change in America. Again I do not blame him completely, his inability to compromise did in fact play a role in US loss of the League fight, which does not make him our greatest twentieth century president.
DeleteI agree. Carleton's essay is mainly his own opinion while Cooper builds off of previously known facts. Carleton's interpretation and idolization of Wilson clearly effect his main argument that Wilson was not responsible for the failure of the U.S. joining the LoN.
DeleteBoth Cooper and Carleton's pieces were excerpted from lengthier books about Wilson's fight for the League. The editors of Taking Sides, Madaras and SoRelle, selected a portion of each book and themselves came up with the question to set up the debate format.
DeleteDo you think the question, "Was Woodrow Wilson responsible for the failure of the US to ratify the treaty..." is a good one? Or are the essays focused on slightly different topics due to the fact that they were originally full-length books researching different questions? And does that change the debate over whether we are blaming Wilson, who, as many of you mentioned, was clearly significantly disabled by 1920?
The argument that Wilson was to blame is based on this logic: Due to his stroke, Wilson became unable to compromise (the stroke exacerbated his already stubborn, self-righteous, but able-to-compromise personality flaw) which led him to instruct Senate Democrats to vote against the Treaty with Reservations, so therefore the Treaty did not pass. According to David Kennedy in The American Pageant, Wilson "sent word to all true Democrats to vote against the treaty with the odios Lodge Reservations attached...Loyal Democrats in the Senate...blindly did Wilson's bidding. Combining with the irreconcilables, mostly Republicans, they rejected the treaty with the Lodge reservations appended, 55 to 39" and later 49 to 35 on another vote.
ReplyDeleteSo do Senate Democrats deserve some blame? As much as Wilson? As much as Lodge and others? After all, any treaty must be passed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The President, who negotiates, plays a leadership role but what about those who actually voted?
An article from the New York Times (March 19, 1920) reported:
"Interest in the vote on the resolution of ratification centred in the Democratic attitude, as it was clear that unless a considerable number of them refused longer to accept the views of President Wilson, there could be no ratification by the Senate. Long before the vote was taken today Senators knew that the Democrats would not bolt the President in sufficient numbers to provide the needed two-thirds." (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0319.html)
Thoughts? How would Cooper or Carleton respond to these questions?
To answer the first few questions, I believe that the Senate Democrats have also contributed to the failure of America to join the League of Nations but shouldn't have as much of the blame as Wilson because they only voted against the treaty because of their loyalty to Wilson, who indirectly threatened their role as a "true democrat." Those who voted play a role of following one another unlike Wilson's role as a leader. They are basically little ducklings that oblige to their mother (Wilson) and follow her.
DeleteI believe that the Senate Democrats did deserve some blame for their actions, but I could also see why they would follow Wilson's leadership. On page 199 it states that the Democrats approached the postwar situation with "mingled hope and apprehension" and did not want to question the leadership of Wilson, their only president to win reelection since Andrew Jackson. However, I do believe that it was their duty to do what was best for the nation, knowing that Wilson had suffered a recent stroke.
DeleteTo answer the question if the Senate Democrats deserved some of the blame as Wilson did, I believe that they could recieve some of the blame for blindly following Wilson, and voting for everything he specifically says. Yes, he was their president (and Im pretty sure if the president told us to specifically do something, most of us would follow because, well, he is our president) but to put absolute support behind a man who could be considered mentally ill after his stroke wasn't the smartest of decisions. I believe it can be concluded that the viewpoint that Wilson had messianic traits would be based off of his supporters willingness to follow him. Maybe it wasn't him with the control, but just the public were so willing to follow that made him seem "Godly" (in Emma's words)
DeleteI believe that Cooper made the stronger argument rather than Carleston. Cooper's essay seemed to be organized in a way that the ideas and arguments flowed together into one overarching argument. Cooper also states alternative arguments such as that Wilson was ahead of his time or that it took WW1 to drive home the the lessons preached by Wilson. However, Cooper goes on to disprove those arguments and show how they pale in comparison to his argument of how Wilson's stroke was the main factor the United States failed to join the League of Nations. Cooper also uses refutable sources such as the works of Edwin Weinstein. On page 199, Cooper uses the research of a trained neurologist to explain the effects of a stroke on personal behavior and personality, "...underscores the conclusion that Wilson was operating at a level far below his best standard of performance in the White House."(199). Carleston, on the other hand paints Wilson in an idealistic view, almost idolizing him as if he were a "fanboy". Carleston immediately takes away credibility from his argument once he states on page 209, "In my own evaluation, I place Wilson...as...our greatest twentieth-century President." Carleston also seems to simply list all of the reasons why Wilson is so "great", instead of actually proving them. On page 205, Carleston states, "...accomplishments of his first term were magnificent. His performance was brilliantly characterized...". While Wilson certainly had many accomplishments as President, Carleston doesn't synthesize them in a relvant argument for the given debate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMaybe all of the blame can't be placed on Wilson, but it can't be completely taken off of him either. There needs to be a happy medium, and a shared blamed. Before this discussion, I fully agreed with Cooper. After reading everyone's comments and points, I have changed my opinion in a way. Mostly, I still agree with Cooper, but I don't believe that Wilson is solely to blame. So,
ReplyDeleteQ: Can anyone else relate? After reading the sources and developing your own opinion, but then reading everyone's comments and inputs, has anyone changed or modified their opinions?
I also feel the same way. At first I didn't know who to support because both of them were well supported viewpoints, but as I read other comments, I began to lean towards Cooper on some points such as Wilson's stroke being the one to blame, but also agreeing with Carleton that Wilson knew the role the U.S. would play. Overall, anyone's view can change and I bet many of us are changing opinions as the comments are being published.
DeleteYes at first I thoight it was without a doubt Wilton's fault becaus of his stroke. But jack made me realize it wasn't his choice and had no control over that.
DeleteI agree with Emma, there is no one to put the whole blame on but Wilson still has a major factor in the failure. Wilson urged the Democrats to vote and like Mrs. Dag mentioned they are at fault to because they decided to vote the way Wilson instructed them to. They should have realized that they should not have listened to Wilson since he had a stroke and wasn't in the healthiest condition to make national decisions. Also, Carleton mentioned that if the Lodge Reservations did indeed get ratified there still was a chance that the U.S. would not be accepted in the League of Nations. Therefore, many Americans are at fault for the failure.
DeleteTo answer Emma's question, reading these essays and then everyone's comments did change my own opinion. At first, I was pretty sure I supported Cooper. I leaned more towards Cooper due to Careston's idolizing of Wilson. After reading people's comments, I realized that in debates like this, there is always going to be a grey zone. There is no "winning side" so to speak. There will always be arguments that counteract each other. This changed my opinion of the essays as I decided to remain neutral on the topic and acknowledge the points made by both sides.
DeleteTo answer the third focus question, I believe that Carleton had a stronger argument than Cooper did. One of Cooper's main statements was that the failure of the U.S to join the League of Nations was due to Wilson's inability to compromise. On page 201, he wrote "...Wilson literally incapable of compromise...he could view his gamble on the League and Article X as anything but an all-or-nothing proposition." However I would say Carleton had a stronger argument because he was able to counteract Cooper. He wrote that Wilson was very flexible. He had to compromise when it came to winning the Federal Reserve Act, the Clayton Anti-Trust Law and the Federal Trade Commission. But in the case of the League, Wilson could not afford to wait for the Southerners to slowly accept the League because Lodge might have added more reservations to the Treaty. Furthermore, he couldn't compromise because he knew other countries wouldn't accept them. Carleton wrote, "Would not other nations have interposed reservations of their own as a condition to their acceptance of the Lodge Reservations?" By counteracting Cooper's arguments, Carleton was able to make his opponent's point invalid.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the Federal Reserve Act, the Clayton Anti-Trust Law, or th Federal trade commission support Carleton's argument. Can you explain that more?
DeleteThese acts have nothing to do with whether or not this was Wilton's fault
DeleteCooper's argument was that Wilson had an inability to compromise, that he was stubborn and adamant. On the other hand Carleton counteracts that by saying that he does have the ability to compromise. He wrote on page 205 that Wilson did have all of the qualities that he was accused of not having, "flexibility, accommodation, a sense of timing, and a willingness to compromise", which can be shown through those acts/laws/commissions.
DeleteBasically to summarize how I feel about the whole issue is that I don't think Wilson is at fault. I don't think Lodge, nor the American people, nor the other countries, nor the two parties were at fault. I believe that no one was at fault, but rather it was just not the right time to establish an international league. I don't remember who wrote about it, but someone did write that historians have gone back and determined that even if the League had worked out, it would not have prevented WWII regardless. I simply believe that no one was at fault, but that the time was right just yet.
DeleteBut Winnie, you also have to remember that Wilson's ability to compromise was affected by his health problems, so although he was able to compromise in the past, that doesn't prove that the stroke didn't affect his flexibility later, during the League fight.
DeleteJulia, the U.S compromising would never have gone well with the European countries and Canada anyways. Carleton wrote "Under the Lodge Reservations, every signatory nation had to accept them before the United States could become a member." Britain would never have agreed to let the Irish have "self-determination", just like how Japan wouldn't agree to give up Shanting, and Latin America agreeing to a stronger Monroe Doctrine. If the U.S were going to add their Reservations to the League, what would stop other countries from doing the same? Suppose the only way the U.S could join the LON was by the Reservations, then other countries will add their Reservations. But then there would be disagreements by Americans about other countries' reservations, and there would need to be compromises over that. It would have been an endless cycle of dispute and compromise, dispute and compromise, and so forthforward. It just wasn't time yet for the U.S to join, and it wasn't Wilson's fault because it would never have worked out anyways. That's what I meant by my previous comment.
Delete[This doesn't count as one of my post but]: Does anyone know what the extra credit is, or where it is posted? I can't find it.
ReplyDeleteSorry I must have erased it. I reposted on www.classjump.com/d/dagostino.
DeleteExtra Credit Option: Due before February Vacation
Watch "The Big Burn" from PBS American Experience.
Write a 2-3 page essay in which you analyze the role of the US Forest Service before and after the wildfire and connect to Progressive and modern conservation goals.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/burn/
Okay thank you
DeleteOn page 194 of Cooper's essay, he wrote, "First, Wilson was ahead of his time. Second, Americans were not ready after World War I to make the full-scale commitment to collective security and international enforcement that Wilson demanded. Third, it took World War II to drive hime the lessons that Wilson had tried to teach." Essentially, the American people were not ready to assume Wilson's commitments.
ReplyDeleteWould anyone like to defend Wilson and argue that he was not at fault, but rather the American people themselves were the one responsible for the failure of joining the League?
It was not just the American people, there were others factors that contributed to the failure. Is it reasonable to say that Wilson's stroke caused the failure?
DeleteBut then Wilson's stroke led to his death. After his passing, Lodge as well as the rest of the American people could have continued to debate and compromise over the League of Nations. Without Wilson and his continuous telling-the-Democrats-to-not-compromise, one would think the Americans would find a way to successfully join the League, would they not?
DeleteEven when Wilson was gone, the Americans still could not sign the treaty. This proves that Wilson is not the reason for the failure of the U.S joining the League of Nations, but rather the fault of the Americans themselves.
To answer Winnie, Wilson represented the American people and since he was the president, he had the final decision to make, not the american people. He may have done his actions for the American citizens, but all of it came from him. So overall, Wilson is still at fault in some degree either way.
DeleteTenzin, you said that Wilson "had the final decision to make", which is not true. Remember in the textbook, it talked about there had to be a vote to see whether or nor to pass entrance of the U.S into the LON with the Reservations. Wilson had to go and talk to the Democrats to get them to vote no. Thus he doesn't make the "final decision", the legislature branch of government does.
DeleteHi everyone, keep up the great posts. I just wanted to quickly remind everyone before I forget that the test on Period 7 (ch. 28-30) will be tomorrow. It includes document-multiple choice and an essay on foreign policy
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Does anyone feel that even if it was Wilson's fault for the failure, that he couldn't really change his actions? He didn't directly cause the occurrence of his stroke and the fact that he grew up with a damaged ego and an unresolved oedipal conflict ( A son who desires his mother).
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you Tenzin that you can't really blame Wilson for his stroke, for his damage ego, because they were all things and characteristics that he couldn't really change about himself. It's like this: Someone may believe that Reconstruction was a major failure. He may argue that if Lincoln was alive during Reconstruction, he could have better protected African American rights. Then is it just for him to claim that Lincoln was responsible for the failure of Reconstruction, you know, because he was shot. Just like you can't blame Lincoln for getting assassinated, you can't blame Wilson for getting a stroke.
DeleteI agree with both Winnie and Tenzin's points, but in addition, as mentioned before, it was partly due to Wilson's personality that he was unable to compromise. As we read in our textbook, Wilson came from an academic background, not a political one, making him more subject to thinking he's right and trying to get what he wants, rather than having a deep-rooted ability to compromise, like someone such as Henry Clay might have. The stroke, also as previously mentioned, exaggerated his personality traits, and so his inability to compromise was magnified. As Cooper said, "a different person would have reacted differently to an illness like this. (200)" So although some blame can be taken off of him due to his health problems, his personality is somewhat still to blame.
DeleteJulia - Your comparison of Wilson to Henry Clay just made me extremely happy. Two very different, yet equally influential, historical figures! :D
DeleteTo answer the third focus question, I believe Cooper's argument is better than Carleton's. Although I originally agreed with Carleton, I now feel that they both had very similar points, but Cooper addressed both sides of the debate and still proved his point. As I was reading, I actually remember thinking that Cooper was proving the opposite of his point, saying such positive things about Wilson, such as praising his boldness, "Without such boldness, Wilson would not have been an ordinary college president, not the most exciting academic innovator of his time. (200)" But, in addition to addressing the other side of the argument, Cooper supports his own argument, especially by discussing the effects of his stroke on how he made decisions, proving with evidence from neurological experts that strokes of the type that Wilson had typically affects the victim's, "personality and behavior (199)". He also refutes points about Wilson being "ahead of his time" by saying that, "the two-party system demands vigorous conflict between the two sides... (198)", and simply stating that Wilson is right does not change the fact that there always has to be two sides to an argument.
ReplyDeleteCarleton, on the other hand, makes good arguments, but doesn't really address the other side of the debate. He discusses how Wilson was neither inflexible or naive, but does not really mention his stroke and how that could have affected his flexibility. He gives many examples of how Wilson was able to compromise in the past, "Wilson had reopened the whole League question and obtained the inclusion of American 'safeguards' he felt would satisfy Lodge. (206)" But Cooper does this too, when he says that Wilson had previously said that "If there is any alternative, for God's sake let's take it. (202)" Carleton fails to address how his change in health could have changed the way he was able to compromise, making Cooper's the strongest argument.
(Note: any posts by "owlcraze99" are from Julia, just to clarify)
I can't reply to Winnie's comment for some reason but in reply to Victoria, I agree with you that there were other contributions to the failure of the U.S. to join the League of Nations other than the stroke that Wilson had, but the stroke seemed to be Cooper's main piece of support for his argument, as stated in the issue summary on page 192.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Cooper's main argument as to why Wilson was unable to compromise was due to his stroke and other heath problems, such as age and fatigue. Do you think it is possible to argue Cooper's point without bringing up the stroke? If Wilson had not had the stroke, would the League of Nations have been passed, or would it still have failed? Or, do you disagree that Cooper's main point was about the stroke?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that we should of joined the League of Nations, and would your opinion of been different if you were making this decision in the 1920s as opposed to today?
ReplyDeleteI believe that if given the choice again as a nation, most people would have found it bennificial to have joined the League of Nations as to improve national power militarily and politically in the world. As If I were to make the decision, I believe it would just have been more preventable bloodshed, and therefore not needed. The United states has made a prominent name for itself through world war 2, and many other standings over time, another large part in a bloody war would have just cost more money and lives then it was worth.
Delete