Henry Cabot Lodge’s Objections to Article 10 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919)
I object in the strongest possible way to having the United States agree, directly or indirectly, to be controlled by a league which may at any time, and perfectly lawfully and in accordance with the terms of the covenant, be drawn in to deal with internal conflicts in other countries, no matter what those conflicts may be. . . . There can be no genuine dispute whatever about the meaning of the first clause of article 10. . . . In article 10 the United States is bound on the appeal of any member of the league not only to respect but to preserve its independence and its boundaries, and that pledge if we give it, must be fulfilled.
. . . The broad fact remains that if any member of the league suffering from external aggression should appeal directly to the United States for support the United States would be bound to give that support in its own capacity and without reference to the action of other powers, because the United States itself is bound, and I hope the day will never come when the United States will not carry out its promises.
. . . Once in the league the chance of amendment is so slight that it is not worth considering. Any analysis of the provisions of this league covenant, however, brings out in startling relief one great fact. Whatever may be said, it is not a league of peace; it is an alliance. . . . The development of international law is neglected. The court which is to decide disputes brought before it fills but a small place. The conditions for which this league really provides with the utmost care are political conditions, not judicial questions. . . . This league to enforce peace does a great deal for enforcement and very little for peace. It makes more essential provisions looking to war than to peace for the settlement of disputes.
Use the excerpt to answer the question.
When Henry Cabot Lodge said that he “hoped the day will never come when the United States will not carry out its promises,” he meant that the United States
A.
could not commit in the abstract to going to war.
B.
had promised not to sign the League of Nations Treaty.
C.
owed it to the world to sign the League of Nations Treaty.
D.
felt the treaty demanded a sly underhandedness from League members.
A. could not commit in the abstract to going to war.
D. felt the treaty demanded a sly underhandedness from League members.
The correct answer is A. could not commit in the abstract to going to war.
To answer this question, we can analyze Henry Cabot Lodge's statement. He expressed his hope that the United States would always fulfill its promises. From the context, it can be inferred that the promises he referred to are those made by the United States when joining the League of Nations, which would require providing support to any member of the league appealing for assistance in case of external aggression. Therefore, the correct answer would be:
C. owed it to the world to sign the League of Nations Treaty.