“Wars in the past have resulted largely from dispute over territory and imposed restraints of racial aspirations.  Governmental entities are more apt to last and to live harmoniously with others if groups are bounded by racial homogeneity rather than by the physical characteristics of the earth in the form of mountains, rivers, etc.  Individual aspiration is a God-given element and distinct ambitions possess the soul of racial unity.  In harmony with this theory, the San Francisco convention should emphasize the Democratic belief in the principle of self-determination in government.  Our citizens will not deny to any race of people the right to hold the emotions which stirred the founders of our Republic.”

The Governor’s position on the League was amplified in his Address of Acceptance at Dayton on August 7th, 1920, in which he said: 

“We are in a time which calls for straight thinking, straight talking and straight acting.  This is no time for wobbling.  Never in all our history has more been done for government.  Never was sacrifice more sublime.  The most precious things of heart and home were given up in a spirit which guarantees the perpetuity of our institutions—­if the faith is kept with those who served and suffered.  The altar of our republic is drenched in blood and tears, and he who turns away from the tragedies and obligations of the war, not consecrated to a sense of honor and of duty which resists every base suggestion of personal or political expediency, is unworthy of the esteem of his countrymen.

“The men and women who by expressed policy at the San Francisco Convention charted our course in the open seas of the future sensed the spirit of the hour and phrased it with clarity and courage.  It is not necessary to read and reread the Democratic platform to know its meaning.  It is a document clear in its analysis of conditions and plain in the pledge of service made to the public.  It carries honesty of word and intent.  Proud of the leadership and achievement of the party in war, Democracy faces unafraid the problems of peace.  Indeed, its pronouncement has but to be read along with the platform framed by Republican leaders in order that both spirit and purpose as they dominate the opposing organizations may be contrasted.  On the one hand we see pride expressed in the nation’s glory and a promise of service easily understood.  On the other a captious, unhappy spirit and the treatment of subjects vital to the present and the future, in terms that have completely confused the public mind.  It was clear that the senatorial oligarchy had been given its own way in the selection of the presidential candidate, but it was surprising that it was able to fasten into the party platform the creed of hate and bitterness and the vacillating policy that possesses it.