=The Treaty in the United States.=—­When the treaty was presented to the United States Senate for approval, a violent opposition appeared.  In that chamber the Republicans had a slight majority and a two-thirds vote was necessary for ratification.  The sentiment for and against the treaty ran mainly along party lines; but the Republicans were themselves divided.  The major portion, known as “reservationists,” favored ratification with certain conditions respecting American rights; while a small though active minority rejected the League of Nations in its entirety, announcing themselves to be “irreconcilables.”  The grounds of this Republican opposition lay partly in the terms of peace imposed on Germany and partly in the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Exception was taken to the clauses which affected the rights of American citizens in property involved in the adjustment with Germany, but the burden of criticism was directed against the League.  Article X guaranteeing against external aggression the political independence and territorial integrity of the members of the League was subjected to a specially heavy fire; while the treatment accorded to China and the sections affecting American internal affairs were likewise attacked as “unjust and dangerous.”  As an outcome of their deliberations, the Republicans proposed a long list of reservations which touched upon many of the vital parts of the treaty.  These were rejected by President Wilson as amounting in effect to a “nullification of the treaty.”  As a deadlock ensued the treaty was definitely rejected, owing to the failure of its sponsors to secure the requisite two-thirds vote.

[Illustration:  EUROPE]

=The League of Nations in the Campaign of 1920.=—­At this juncture the presidential campaign of 1920 opened.  The Republicans, while condemning the terms of the proposed League, endorsed the general idea of an international agreement to prevent war.  Their candidate, Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio, maintained a similar position without saying definitely whether the League devised at Paris could be recast in such a manner as to meet his requirements.  The Democrats, on the other hand, while not opposing limitations clarifying the obligations of the United States, demanded “the immediate ratification of the treaty without reservations which would impair its essential integrity.”  The Democratic candidate, Governor James M. Cox, of Ohio, announced his firm conviction that the United States should “go into the League,” without closing the door to mild reservations; he appealed to the country largely on that issue.  The election of Senator Harding, in an extraordinary “landslide,” coupled with the return of a majority of Republicans to the Senate, made uncertain American participation in the League of Nations.

=The United States and International Entanglements.=—­Whether America entered the League or not, it could not close its doors to the world and escape perplexing international complications.  It had ever-increasing financial and commercial connections with all other countries.  Our associates in the recent war were heavily indebted to our government.  The prosperity of American industries depended to a considerable extent upon the recovery of the impoverished and battle-torn countries of Europe.