Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 377–388 | Cite as

Nationhood and neighbourhood: the Lodge-Wilson quarrel and the question of progress

  • Clinton CondraEmail author
Themed Section: Wilsonianism and Transatlantic Relation Introduction

Abstract

Underlying the Lodge-Wilson quarrel of 1919 was not the question of ‘isolationism’ versus ‘internationalism’ but questions on which conservatives and progressives had been divided long before Armistice Day and remain divided even now: Is history destined to culminate in a condition of perpetual peace? And is it in statesmen’s power to hasten the advent of this condition? Wilson’s optimistic answers to these questions are of a piece with that of nineteenth-century British Radical John Bright, while Lodge’s scepticism is akin to that of Bright’s contemporary Robert Cecil, Third Marquess of Salisbury. This essay discusses the views of these statesmen in order to show that the progressive-optimistic attitude of Bright and Wilson invites a foreign policy that dismisses the significance of nationhood and international neighbourhood.

Keywords

Lodge Wilson Bright Marquess of Salisbury nationhood international neighbourhood 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Lloyd E. Ambrosius ‘Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I’, The Journal of American History 59, no. 2 (Sep., 1972): 341–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    That the optimistic or progressive response to these questions dates to the age of enlightenment is shown by Felix Gilbert ‘The “New Diplomacy” of the Eighteenth Century’, World Politics 4, no. 1 (Oct., 1951): 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quoted in Selected Speeches of the Rt. Hon. John Bright M.P. On Public Questions (London: J.M. Dent and Co., 1907), p.92; emphasis mine.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quoted in Ibid., 12; emphasis mine.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quoted in Ibid., 49; emphasis mine.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quoted in Ibid., 129–31.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quoted in Ibid., 131.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quoted in Speeches of the Rt. Hon. John Bright M.P. On the American Question (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1865), 134.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quoted in Ibid., 177.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quoted in Ibid., 144.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quoted in Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, The Political Thought of Lord Salisbury, 1854–68 (London: Constable, 1967), 106.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robert Cecil ‘North America’ (The Quarterly Review, October 1862), 535, 538–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ibid., 547.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quoted in Pinto-Duschinsky, 111.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robert Cecil ‘France and Europe’, (Bentley’s Quarterly Review, October 1859), 6–7, 11.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robert Cecil ‘Count Bismarck’s Circular Letters to Foreign Courts’ (The Quarterly Review, October 1870), 556, 541.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibid., 541, 546.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arthur S. Link, Revolution, War, and Peace (Arlington Heights, IL: AHM Publishing Corporation, 1979), 13.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quoted in Ibid., 79.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ambrosius, 343.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Inis L. Claude, Power and International Relations (New York: Random House, 1962), 75.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quoted in Ibid., 85.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quoted in Ibid., 96.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quoted in Ibid., 97.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Woodrow Wilson ‘Democracy and Efficiency’ (The Atlantic 87/521, 1901), 289–99.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quoted in Claude, 134–5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quoted in Ibid., 549.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quoted in Ambrosius, 342.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ambriosius, 344.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Quoted in Ambrosius, 344–5.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Quoted in Ibid., 555, 561.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quoted in Ibid., 546.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robert Cecil ‘Lives of Lord Castlereagh and Sir Charles Stewart’ (The Quarterly Review, January 1862), 229–30.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid., 234.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Quoted in Geoffrey G. Butler, The Tory Tradition (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street W., 1914), 133–4.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Quoted in Ibid., 136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations