An analysis of the debates on neutrality legislation in the United States senate 1935-1941

429 Pages·021.88 MB·English

by  Cain, Earl Richard

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Manuscript Theses
Unpublished theses submitted for the Master®s and Doctor®s degrees
and deposited in the Northwestern University Library are open for inspection,
but are to be used only with due regard to the rights of the authors. Biblio­
graphical references may be noted, but passages may be copied only with the
permission of the authors, and proper credit must be given in subsequent
written or published work. Extensive copying or publication of the thesis
in whole or in part requires also the consent of the Dean of the Graduate
School of Northwestern University.
Theses may be reproduced on microfilm for use in place of the
manuscript itself provided the rules listed above are strictly adhered to
and the rights of the author are in no way Jeopardized.
/rP
'*
This thesis by .
has been used by the following persons, whose signatures attest their accept­
ance of the above restrictions.
A Library which borrows this thesis for use by its patrons is
expected to secure the signature of each user.
NAME AND ADDRESS DATE

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
AIM ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATES
ON NEUTRALITY LEGISLATION
IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE
1935-1941
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
FIELD OF SPEECH
By
Earl Richard Cain
Evanston, Illinois
August, 1950
ProQuest Number: 10101242
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10101242
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to acknowledge the assistance
and counsel of Ernest J. Wrage, the director
of this study. His guidance and encourage­
ment have been of immeasurable value in the
preparation of this dissertation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 1
Purpose of the S t u d y .................. 1
Scope and Place of the S t u d y ......... 2
Method of the Study ..................... 8
Organization of the Study.............. .. 12
II. WAR FEARS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND NEUTRALITY . . 15
III. NEUTRALITY ON PROBATION FOR A YEAR: 1936 . . 62
IV. A LOOPHOLE IS PLUGGED: JANUARY, 1937 . . . . 114
V. CASH-AND-CARRY: 1937 136
Part I: The Pittman Bill............. 136
Part II: The House and Senate Compromise . 185
VI. THE THEORY MEETS THE PRACTICE: 1939 ........ 208
VII. T?A CYCLE IN HUMAN EVENTS
IS ABOUT TO COME TO ITS END. n ....... 290
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................. 368
APPENDIX A: Notes on the Historical Foundations
, of a Neutrality Policy.............. 337
APPENDIX B: Breakdown of Senate Voting on
Neutrality Legislation, 1935-1941 • * 401
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 408
CHAPTER I
j INTRODUCTION
! Purpose of The Study
j In his Memoirs. Cordell Hull recalled his impressions
jof the American mood in relation to world affairs in 1935:
i
! In the United States an avalanche of isolation­
ism was overwhelming any prospect of inducing the
American people to agree to a more vital share in
world affairs. Congress, having disavowed the World
Court, was seeking ways to legislate us out of pos­
sible involvement in the next war which was becoming
more and more inevitable.
. . . it was to color our foreign relations up
to and after the day that Hitler’s armies plunged
into Poland and the Second World War began.1
In the 1930fs the American people witnessed the break­
down of virtually every piece of international machinery for
keeping world peace, and a great many Americans believed that
the security of the United States would best be assured by
withdrawal into what has been commonly called a policy of iso­
lation. This thinking found expression in many places. One,
as Hull describes, was the Congress of the United States. From
Congress there came, in response to the pleas of many groups
|and individuals, a series of legislative acts known as the Neu­
trality Acts. On six separate occasions between August of 1935
and November of 1941, Congress deliberated and acted upon some
phase of neutrality legislation. In the congressional debates,
(arguments and strategy were largely keyed to the question: Can
,i
' I
—
The Memoirs of Cordell Hull. I, p. 397.
1
2
i:
the United States act to insure itself against participation
ii
in a future war? The absorbed attention given to legislation
II
;i
l!designed to promote this end, and the historical consequences
it
!j
!which flowed from the action taken give point to Senator Elbert
j
■D* Thomas1 judgment that . . all our international consid­
erations were influenced in a way by the neutrality acts.T,l
j| The study is focused upon the neutrality debates as
I they occurred on the floor of the Senate of the United States
'ibetween 1935 and 1941* The object is to provide a narrative
of these debates within the context of contemporary events and
to analyze the discussions by means of concepts taken from the
ii theory of argumentation. For the first time, as distinguished
from other studies on the subject, this dissertation relates
ithe debates on the several neutrality measures in such a fashion
as to provide a profile of the leading debaters, issues, argu­
ments, and appeals within their historical context. Such a
istudy, it is believed, is not only informative as to the shap­
ing of our foreign policy for this period, but to the student
of argumentation it also affords insight into the practices
and characteristics of legislative debate.
Scone and Place of the Study
The time interval of this study was determined by
recent legislative history on neutrality. Between 1935 and
1941> six neutrality bills were proposed, debated in Congress,
:i I
Letter to the writer from Senator Elbert Thomas,
i/United States Senator from Utah, January 30, 1950. Senator
ilThomas participated in the neutrality debates from 1935 to
1941-
'land enacted into law. Following the first measure, each sub-
j!
Ilsequent debate proved to be an extension of previous arguments*
bhen read today, with all of the records at onefs disposal, the
jl
Jseveral debates may be seen really as one debate, an unfolding
!j
polemic which informs only if the chronicle of argument is read
]i
jjfrom the first stirrings for neutrality to the interruption of
|i
fiiscussions by the events of war. There is an inextricability
labout these debates which gives them unity and which therefore
jj
jaade it almost mandatory that the entire sweep of the discussion
jibe brought into view.
I
I But some limits had to be imposed. Since legislative
■measures, such as the neutrality bills, are debated in both
iBenate and House, any attempt to make a close analysis of what
r
Was said in the entire Congress for this period becomes an in­
credibly time consuming task. In the Senate alone, to which
this study is confined for reasons shortly to be stated, the
Rebates run through five volumes of the Congressional Record,
s^nd in the 1939 Senate debate, the Record printed more than one
million words uttered by seventy senators.! And since the study,
as conceived, made necessary a wide consultation of historical
and contemporary literature in addition to an examination of the
actual debates, it was deemed wise to focus upon one chamber of
the national legislature.
j; But why choose the Senate rather than the House? Sev­
eral reasons dictated this selection. The first hinges on the
J i
The total quoted in the New York Times. October 2S,
1939, p. U
|Senate?s legal and historic role in the determination of for-
!
lieign policy* Odder its constitutional authority to approve
|treaties and foreign appointments, the Senate has become on
i
i
many occasions an equal of the Executive branch in interna­
tional affairs* The greater public attention given to the
jjsenate neutrality debates became evident in the reading of
It
1‘contemporary opinion publications. The personalities in the
'!
ilSenate were better known nationally than those who engaged in
[j
jthe House debate. The Senate included many of the leaders who
{helped formulate and who spearheaded Administration policy,
i;
iland also included their opponents, the leading isolationists.!
k second selection of the Senate grows out
j u s t i f i c a t i o n f or
lof its size and composition. The Senate is smaller in numbers
than the House, which makes the task of presenting participants
in the debate more manageable than would be the case in a body
of four hundred and thirty-five Representatives. Senators are
Elected for a six-year term compared to the two-year term of
'i
House members. This meant that Senate membership remained rel­
atively stable during the period of the debates, and makes pos­
sible a noting of alignments, strategies, shifts, consistencies
i
or inconsistencies in argument. As research progressed, it be­
came evident that the relatively stable membership of the Senate
Was extremely important in interpreting the debates.
' I
Isolationist arguments could hardly be presented ac­
curately without a consideration of the speeches of Nye, Bone,
pennett Clark, LaFollette, or Vandenberg.