Abstract

This paper analyzes the values and logic of the most influential critics of us neutrality in 1914-17. These "peace progressives" viewed official us policy as biased toward the Allies and they opposed us entry into the war in April 1917. They were convinced that however World War i turned out, America's well being was secure. They saw no national security reason for the us to align itself and they feared that taking sides would lead to sharp increases in American military forces and to intervention in the war itself - two developments they believed would militarize American society, destroy progressive democratic reforms, and ruin America's ability to mediate an end to the war. They placed great value on American mediation which they saw as the pathway to reforming the international system and ridding it of "power politics". Rather than favoring one side or the other in the war, the peace progressives called for a policy of strict neutrality, which to them meant avoiding conflict with either group of belligerents, if necessary by waiving American neutral rights. They also called for America to lead a conference of neutrals in "continuous mediation" of the war. To them, this course amounted to implementing international reform even while the war was going on. In the long run, although the peace progressives failed to prevent us entry into World War i, their ideas reverberated over the following decades, especially in the movement to outlaw war and in democratic peace theory.