As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations Senator Pittman was a key figure in driving through President Wilson's League of Nations proposal. A loyal Democrat, Pittman wholeheartedly endorsed this major plank in the Wilson Administration's foreign policy. But opposition to the League of Nations in the U.S. Senate was widespread, and not just among Republicans. Nevertheless, in his speech in support of the League, Pittman launched a withering attack on his Republican opponents, effectively accusing them of putting the interests of their party above those of the country.
Pittman believed, as did President Wilson himself, that the League of Nations represented a noble ideal that would genuinely achieve peace throughout the world. Given such an elevated view of the matter, it's hardly surprising that Pittman—again, like Wilson—should feel that the Republicans didn't share the Administration's high ideals in the conduct of foreign affairs, and so were somehow lacking in...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
moral fiber. For Pittman, the campaign to ratify the League of Nations was almost a moral crusade, and so it followed that anyone who opposed ratification was not just wrong, but downright immoral. Hence the withering terms of abuse that Pittman reserves in his speech for Senate Republicans, indirectly accusing them of greed, cowardice, and isolationism.
I assume that you are asking about Senator Pittman of Nevada who gave a speech that is sometimes excerpted in primary document collections.
In this excerpt, Pittman does not come right out and say why he thinks the Republicans are opposing entry into the League. However, he implies two things. First, he implies that the Republicans are opposing the League simply for political gain. He implies that Republicans who are voting against it are putting the good of their party before that of their country. Second, he implies that they may be doing this for selfish reasons. He says that the refusal to enter the League would lead to the adoption of a policy of isolation and profit. He mentions selfishness and greed. He seems to be implying that the Republicans might make money off of wars and would therefore not like the League to bring peace.