Neutrality – Nov. 11, 1935

Broadcast - 5 to 5:15
Monday, November 11th
National Broadcasting Company

As written

In the closing days of the last Congress a bill was passed, familiarly known as the Neutrality Bill. So much controversial debate took place in connection with it and such varied comments were made upon it by the press, that many of our citizens have a wholly false conception of the intention of the bill.

There are those who suppose the measure declares our neutrality in the war now in progress between Italy and Ethiopia and that it is now unlawful for any American to trade with, or lend money to, or travel upon the ships of either belligerent.

So much eloquence was expended by Congress about "taking the profits out of war" that this illusory aim is also supposed by many, in some mysterious way, to have been inserted in this bill. The measure by no means attempts so wide a sweep. It declares no neutrality, "takes no profit out of war", forbids no general trade nor loan of money.

It is merely an embargo on war implements to either beliggerant and warns all citizens that if they travel on the ships of either, they must do so at their own risk. Expressions of regret were general at the close of Congress, because the provisions of the measure were so narrow and proscribed.

The regrets were followed by many declarations of intentions to withdraw this unsatisfactory measure in the next Congress and to substitute another of broader and more permanent provisions. At present that is mere talk with no assurances that it will be done.

Unhappily, no one knows how to write a Declaration of Neutrality which will give us security against war, or certainty that we shall not be drawn into the next war.

The first attempt to declare Neutrality to be the policy of our nation was in the administration of George Washington when Congress passed such an Act. It was not found possible to enforce it and, due to conditions arising out of the war then in progress between France and England, this country was drawn into the war of 1812. Shortly after that date another Act of Congress declared Neutrality as a permanent policy. When the Great War began in 1914, our government announced in vigorous tones that our policy would be that of strict Neutrality and, indeed, the nation believed this had been the policy of our nation since 1818. Our citizens supposed that life would continue with the same rights, as usual, of freedom to trade and to travel, but two new implements of war had been added to war equipment which will always render Neutrality difficult. They have compelled a reversal of theories toward Neutrality. The former theory contended that a neutral possessed the right to trade and to move upon the seas in any ships that served his convenience. The newer theory is that neutrals must pay a huge price for their Neutrality. They must relinquish their rights to trade and travel and forget "the freedom of the seas". Such liberties are acknowledged now as risks which one's government is not expected to defend.

No sooner was war declared in 1914 than shiploads of buyers from all the belligerent countries were here to contract for army foods, shoes, clothes, and all variety of war implements. Early battles revealed to the Germans that the Allies were using American-made ammunitions. They proposed to stop their further export by sinking ships that carried the munitions. They manufactured a special variety of small bomb on one of their interned ships in the Hudson River and idle men, wandering about, deposited them on ships bearing cargo which they believed included ammunition. Many ships were sunk. Meanwhile, the British were sadly interfering with our shipping trade. Propaganda material from both sides was sent to us in quantities. After two years of failure to defend our freedom of trade or travel, the impossibility of maintaining neutrality became evident and President Wilson, at a special session of Congress, delivered a message to the effect that despite all our efforts to keep the peace, a state of war existed. American ships had been sunk, American citizens had been killed, American trade had been driven from the seas. By that date, there were few, if any, Americans who still remained impartial. They neither felt nor acted like neutrals and we therefore entered the Great War.

Nor are we impartial now. Ethiopia is too far away, too poor, and too behind the times with the latest tricks of war, to spend money upon American propaganda, but Italy is sending literature here in considerable quantities, apparently with the hope of persuading us of her honorable intentions. Fascist organizations are here also. So are "Friends of the New Germany" spreading defenses of the Nazi policy. A problem arises. Can naturalized citizens be permitted to agitate for political parties of their home countries? From previous experiences, it seems clear that no form of neutrality, yet devised, will keep us out of war or give any certain security against war.

Charles Warren, Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 1914-1918 and, in that capacity, in charge of the enforcement of our neutrality, has said more than once that the only certain method of maintaining neutrality is to prevent the occurrence of wars.

Secretary Hull, in a recent radio address, has pronounced the same warning. If our nation desires to keep out of war, it must be more vigorous in maintaining peace. It means the abandonment of neutral rights and an increase of neutral responsibilities. It means giving up the theory of isolation with the door shut and a partnership with trusted Allies for the prevention of war and the maintenance of peace.

If you would learn more about Neutrality, go to the Hotel Astor tomorrow evening, November 12th, where the New York League of Women Voters will hold a meeting on this subject. The speakers are

As given

Seventeen years ago today the entire world was rejoicing because the Great War had come to an end. The seventeen years that have passed between then and now have not been happy ones for any nation. High taxes, decreased income, unemployment and instability of business have been the penalties that all the nations have paid for indulging in the most extensive war known to history.

Now another war has occurred in far-away Ethiopia. France is alarmed lest Germany will take this opportunity to begin another European war. China, also, fears that Japan will avail itself of the chance when nations are occupied elsewhere, to make another attack upon her.

Here, in the United States, controversy is widespread over the topic: "Can we keep out of the next war? In case of war, could we remain neutral?"

In the closing days of the last Congress a bill was passed, familiarly known as the Neutrality Bill. So much congressional debate took place in connection with it and such varied comments were made upon it by the press, that many of our citizens have a wholly false conception of the contents of the bill.

There are those who suppose the measure declares our neutrality in the war now in progress between Italy and Ethiopia and that is has now become unlawful for any American to trade with, or lend money to, or travel upon the ships of either belligerent.

So much eloquence was expended by Congress about "taking the profits out of war" while this bill was pending, that this illusory aim is also supposed by many to have been incorporated in the bill. The measure by no means attempts so wide a sweep nor are its provisions at all mysterious. It declares no neutrality, "takes no profit out of war", forbids no general trade and denies no loan of money.

It is merely an embargo on munitions of war to either belligerent and warns all citizens that if they travel on the ships of either, they must do so at their own risk. Expressions of regret were general at the close of Congress, because the provisions of the measure were so few.

The regrets were followed by many declarations made by members of Congress that they will substitute a bill of broader and more permanent provisions for this unsatisfactory measure in the next Congress. At present, however, that is mere talk with no assurances that it will be done.

Apparently, no one knows how to write a Declaration of Neutrality which can guarantee our security against war, or offer certainty that we shall not be drawn into the next one.

The first attempt to declare Neutrality the policy of our nation was in the administration of George Washington when Congress passed such an act in 1794. It proved impossible of enforcement and, due to conditions arising out of the war then in progress between France and England, this country was drawn into the war of 1812. Shortly after that date, 1818, another Act of Congress declared Neutrality as a permanent policy. When the Great War began in 1914, our government announced in vigorous tones that our policy would be that of strict Neutrality and, indeed, the nation believed this had been our policy since its earliest days. Our citizens supposed that life would continue with the same rights, as usual, of freedom to trade with other countries and to travel where they wished, but two new additions to war equipment had been made which utterly destroyed those expectations. These new weapons were the submarine and the bombing airplane and it now seems that these will always make the enforcement of neutrality difficult for any country. Although American ships were sunk, American property destroyed, and American lives lost during the period of our attempted neutrality, 1914 to 1917, no apology was ever made or reparation paid for the losses this nation suffered due to violations of the rights claimed by our Department of State.

The theory of 1914, concerning the rights of neutrals, has now been reversed. The rights, once boldly claimed, have shrunk to these meager privileges: "Trade or travel, if you will, but at your own risk; your government will be unable to protect you or demand reparation for any losses you sustain."

Incidentally, another right has been lost. All belligerents, a half century ago, were supposed to protect women and children from harm occasioned by war, as they are non-combatants, but submarines and bombing airplanes respect no such rules of former times.

Neutrality, therefore, may neither keep us out or war nor safeguard the lives or property of our people. Historians agree that the war of 1812 was caused by the violations of our announced neutrality. The times and the nature of wars had greatly changed before 1914. We thought the nations had all become civilized; more reasonable, in the century passed, and, again, our country declared its neutrality. Both groups of the belligerents showed our policy scant courtesy and we must also confess that our own people had small comprehension of the duties of citizens in a neutral nation.

No sooner was war declared in 1914 than shiploads of buyers from all the belligerent countries were here to contract for army foods, shoes, clothes, and all variety of war implements. Early battles revealed to the Germans that the Allies were using American-made ammunitions. They secretly proposed to stop their further export by sinking ships that carried the munitions. They manufactured a special variety of small bomb on one of their interned ships in the Hudson River and idle men, wandering about, deposited them on ships bearing cargo which they believed included ammunition. Many ships were sunk.

Meanwhile, the British, too, were sadly interfering with our shipping trade. They had swept the German ships from the seas and now set out to destroy the neutral trade from which Germany might obtain supplies to support her war.

Propaganda material from both sides was sent to us in quantities. After two years of failure to defend our freedom of trade or travel, the impossibility of maintaining neutrality became evident and President Wilson, at a special session of Congress, on April 2, 1917, delivered a message to the effect that despite all our efforts to keep the peace, a state of war existed. By that date, there were few, if any, Americans who still remained impartial. They neither felt nor acted like neutrals.

Said the President in his address:

"The German policy" has swept every restriction aside. Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo, their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning and without thought of help or mercy for those on board. Even hospital ships and ships carrying relief to the sorely bereaved people…

Catt, C. C. (1935). Carrie Chapman Catt Papers: Speech and Article File, 1892-1946; Speeches; Untitled; 1928-1944. [Manuscript/Mixed Material] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/mss154040425