So high an ideal inevitably encountered the charge that it was not sincere, that the language of the President was but a cloak to an ambition he dare not aver; in short, that he was as leaders of other nations were, in the war for national ends. The record of acts as well as words of the President gives this its answer. On May 22, 1917, the President felt called upon to denounce efforts to weaken preparation by questioning purpose, when in a letter to Representative Heflin, he said: "We have entered the war for our own reasons and with our own objects clearly stated and shall forget neither the reasons nor the objects." (Statement No. 86.)

In addressing an audience at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day the President showed the turn his thought had taken when he called for action, not words. (Statement No. 87.) The time had come to show that American principles were living principles. Inasmuch as these principles had been attacked as idealistic throughout his administration, the President doubtless felt the greater need for rapid action.

On June 9, 1917, the President in a communication to the new government of Russia again reverted to the mistaken and misleading statements as to the objects of the United States in entering the war. (Statement No. 88.) In the hope of the cordial co-operation of the peoples of Russia and the United States he stated the objects once more. Of his own country the President said in unmistakable terms: "She seeks no material profit or aggrandizement of any kind. She is fighting for no advantage

or selfish object of her own, but for the liberation of peoples everywhere from the aggressions of autocratic force.

. . We are fighting for the liberty, the self-government, and undictated development of all peoples, and every feature of the settlement that concludes this war must be conceived and executed for that purpose. .. But they must follow a principle, and that principle is plain. No people must be forced under sovereignty under which it does not wish to live." Again the President called for a practical treatment of practical questions. "We ought not," said he, "to consider remedies merely because they have a pleasing and sonorous sound."

On Flag Day, June 14, 1917, he took occasion to answer the general query, "Why was the United States about to send an army to Europe?" His answer was found in the new purpose, as that had been formed in a new conception of American duty, not only to her own future, but to that of the world at large. The President's own conception had grown sharper and clearer. "The military masters of Germany denied us the right to be neutral." (Statement No. 89.) Undeniably such words could have been used by a man forcing a war, and endeavouring to delude his people and the world as to his real purpose. But the answer to any such charge may be found in the record of his administration. As the choice of peoples had had no part in launching the European war, it was natural to say that the American war was not upon the German people. The war upon which the United States had entered was a war on

behalf of "peoples," a war for freedom and justice and self-government for all the nations of the world. This statement was emphasized by the pledge given to the Belgian War Mission on June 18, 1917, that Belgium at the close of the war should be restored "to the place she has so richly won among the self-respecting and respected nations of the earth."

Confusion has often been confessed by commentators in discussing the entrance of the United States into the war. They express difficulty in reconciling the address of January 22, 1917, with the subsequent acts of the President. This arises primarily out of a lack of knowledge of the steps which led up to the address of January 22, 1917, particularly the note of December 18, 1916, and the address of May 27, 1916. A careful reading of the President's statements, particularly after April 19, 1915, in accompaniment with a record of German acts, should make this confusion disappear. There are Americans who see either only the national issue or only the international cause. It is of vital importance to clear thinking that these aims be not dissociated.1

Secretary Lansing doubtless had this in mind when on July 29, 1917, he said: "The immediate cause of our war with Germany - the breaking of her promises as to indiscriminate submarine warfare - has a far deeper meaning, a meaning which has been growing more evident as the war progresses and which needed but this act of

1 See a brilliant exposition of President Wilson's course by W. Lippmann, "The World Conflict in its Relation to American Democracy," Annals of American Academy, LXXII, 1.

perfidy to bring it home to all thinking Americans. We know now that that government is inspired with ambitions which menace human liberty; and that to gain its end, it does not hesitate to break faith, to violate the most sacred rights, or to perpetrate intolerable acts of inhumanity."

This deeper purpose of the course against the German government, not the mere desire for a crushing victory over German arms, again actuated the President in his reply to the Pope on August 27, 1917. "We cannot take the word of the present rulers of Germany as a guarantee of anything that is to endure, unless explicitly supported by such conclusive evidence of the will and purpose of the German people themselves as the other peoples of the world would be justified in accepting." (Statement No. 90.)

CHAPTER VIII

LEADERSHIP OF WOODROW WILSON

Components of Foreign Policy - Fundamental Principles of Mr. Wilson Conditions Affecting Practice - Importance of Public Opinion - Sincerity of the President - Application of Principles Faith in Democracy - Equality of NationsFair Dealing between Nations-Supremacy of Law - War for Humanity Importance of Consistency-Bases for Judgment Position of the United States in 1917.

It is now possible to state definitely the several elements. of which President Wilson's foreign policy was compounded. There were in the first place the fundamental beliefs of the man himself - the unshakable convictions which had become his after years of study of the efforts of the peoples of the world to govern themselves. The primary and basic principle was a faith in democracy, both as an ideal and as a practice. Upon the soundness of the democratic principle he rested all his other beliefs.

Because he believed in democracy he believed that every nation should regard every other nation as its equal; that fair dealing was the best means of preserving friendship and peace between nations; that the guidance of established law was essential to international justice and fair dealing; and that, if unhappily disputes should arise between nations, the proper means for settling them was a reasoned consideration before a court of arbitration of the