At the outbreak of World War I, the United States was a
neutral country wondering: “Should we go to war?” At issue was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania
(sunk May 7, 1915) which claimed the lives of 128 Americans. Was the US now involved? Senator Borah urged his fellow legislators to
take a hands-off approach. He
begrudgingly accepted the US’s invasion of Mexico during the coincident Pancho Villa
Expedition and felt that the Lusitania did not merit breaking neutrality.
More importantly concerning whether to stay neutral or not
was the selling of weapons to European belligerents. In tail-wagging-the-dog fashion then – as
today – the role of weapons manufactures was in question. Is it a breach of neutrality to sell weapons
to other states involved in war? Borah’s
Senate colleague Robert La
Follette, a remarkable statesman in his own right, took up this issue. “It is repugnant to every moral sense,” La
Follette said, “that governments should even indirectly be drawn into making
and prosecuting war through the machinations of those making money by it.” (197)
The war drums were beating steadily by this time. Calls to go to war were made in the name of
patriotism. And the weapon sales that La
Follette was arguing against were already taking place. Although in 1914 Secretary of State William Jennings
Bryan had “advised bankers that loans to belligerents would be inconsistent
with our ‘true spirit of neutrality’”, the US government decided on the
laissez-faire option. And war became
good for business:
[T]he
Government announced that it would not approve or disapprove credits made by
American banks for the purpose of facilitating belligerent purchases in the
United States. […] So much prosperity
arose from the purchases made by the Allies in the United States that in
August, 1915, the Government of the United States agreed that the belligerents
might float public loans in this country. (198)
JP
Morgan & Co. positioned the United States to support the Allies which “fueled
charges the bank was conspiring to maneuver the United States into supporting
the Allies in order to rescue its loans”.
The bank funded Russia, France and England. After the war Morgan & Co. managed the reparations
from and loaned money to Germany.
Borah eventually voted for joining the war saying, “I make
war alone for my countrymen and their rights, for country and its honor”
(203). Was Borah picking one current
among many leading to war that he deemed acceptable, running with it, arguing
for it almost as a proxy? Liberty is
quite the concept to fight for but can also serve to blind one to the
complexities of many situations, especially
ones involving world politics. Near the
end of his life, as the next world war was breaking out, Borah infamously said,
“Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler – all this might have been averted,”
garnering scorn. But who knows what
would have happened if Borah could have addressed the German as men discussing
pure concepts of liberty, etc.
I feel that in the events of war Borah maintained his
integrity: another post could be the topic of his relation/opinion about
banks. I will let Claudius Johnson
conclude with these stirring words re: Sen. Borah:
By
inheritance, by instinct, by environment, by education, and by profession Borah
is an individualist. By the same token
he has always stood for national individualism.
Political isolation and political isolation only, will, in his opinion,
give us peace and the opportunity to work out our own democratic destiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment