Слике страница

year in Atlanta, Ceorgia. Then he entered Johns Hopkins University for post-graduate work in political science. He received the degree of Ph.D. in 1886, his thesis on “Congressional Government” being at once accepted as authoritative. For three years (1885-1888) Mr. Wilson taught at Bryn Mawr College, going then to Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, for two years (18881890). He was called to Princeton in 1890 as Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy. In 1902 he was made president of Princeton University, his term of office being noted for many important reforms, all of which were in the direction of the democratization of the institution.

In 1910 Mr. Wilson was urged to become a candidate for governor of New Jersey. He was elected as a Democrat in a state which had been Republican for sixteen years. As governor of New Jersey he was able to put into operation many reforms which his long study of political philosophy had convinced him were wise. Among these were a direct-primary law and a corrupt-practices act which have since met with general acceptance in our political system. A law creating a public-utilities commission and establishing stringent control over corporations has generally been regarded a most salutary reform in dealing with the difficult matter of relationship between the state and the corporations. Mr. Wilson's success in bringing about these reforms was so marked that he soon became a leading candidate for the presidency. At the Democratic National Convention in Baltimore in 1912 Mr. Wilson was nominated on the forty-sixth ballot. A split in the Republican party that year made his election in November almost inevitable. Mr. Wilson received 435 electoral votes out of 531.

As president, Mr. Wilson has acted along the same lines of progressive and constructive statesmanship which made

him so successful as president of Princeton and governor of New Jersey. He was reëlected in November, 1916, for a second term.


The most remarkable and significant accomplishment of Woodrow Wilson's undergraduate college days was an article on “Cabinet Government in the United States," published in the International Review for August, 1879. The article is marked by a breadth of knowledge, range of vision, and independence of thought rarely found in a young man of twenty-three. The Princeton University library has an incomplete bibliography of the published writings and addresses of Woodrow Wilson. This list shows seventy-five titles for the twenty-five years between 1875 and 1900.

The following list includes some of the most important of his books and magazine articles :

Congressional Government, A Study of American Politics. 1885.
The State: Elements of History and Practical Politics. 1889.
Division and Reunion. 1893.
An Old Master and Other Political Essays. 1893.
Mere Literature. 1896.
History of the American People (5 vols.). 1901.
Constitutional Government in the United States. 1908.
Mr. Cleveland as President. Atlantic Monthly, March, 1897.
The Makers of the Nation. Atlantic Monthly, July, 1897.
On Being Human. Atlantic Monthly, September, 1897.
A Lawyer with a Style. Atlantic Monthly, September, 1898.
Reconstruction of the Southern States. Atlantic Monthly,

January, 1901.
Politics, 1857-1907. Atlantic Monthly, November, 1907.
The States and the Federal Government. North American
Review, May, 1908.

Woodrow Wilson's style is marked by vivacity and incisiveness, and at times possesses considerable literary charm. Mr. Wilson is an independent thinker, of remarkable breadth of vision, and his discussions of political and historical questions are always clear and convincing. He makes few false motions, uses no superfluous words, but like a master workman makes all his strokes tell. Another noteworthy quality of Woodrow Wilson, the writer, is the measured judgment and calm detachment with which he treats of subjects which ordinarily rouse men's passion to the boiling point. An early example of this characteristic is his essay on “Mr. Cleveland as President” written before the end of Mr. Cleveland's second term. His war addresses are marked by the same cool judgment, the same clear independent thinking, the same range of vision, and the same incisive style which are characteristic of his earlier literary productions. One is never at a loss for his meaning: his words ring like steel on flint; his judgment is never swayed by passion.


Underlying Causes. The murder of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, on June 28, 1914, set in motion a train of events which culminated in the terrible catastrophe of a great world war. It was clear, however, to everyone familiar with history that this crime was not the real cause of the tremendous struggle which many of the statesmen of Europe had expected and feared for years. The underlying causes of this great world war reach far back into the past and cannot easily be reduced to simple statements. A thorough knowledge of the important political and economic forces which have shaped the history of Europe for a

century past would be needed for a full appreciation of these causes. Of all this network of clashing interests and antagonisms, there are three causes which seem to have contributed most largely toward bringing about the war. These are (1) the clashing of national interests and ideals in Europe; (2) the maintenance of a system of secret military alliances; and (3) the economic rivalry of the nations of Europe.

National Antagonisms. The history of Europe since the downfall of Napoleon has centered around two movements : the growth of democracy and the realization of national ideals. Here we must distinguish clearly between the ambitions of RULERS in Europe and the national ideals and desires of the various groups of PEOPLE having a common language and tradition. Italy achieved independence and unity between 1859 and 1870; German unity was accomplished between 1864 and 1871. The success of these two nationalist movements aroused other nationalities likewise to aspire to national unity and greatness. But there remained at the close of the nineteenth century a number of situations which clearly violated the principle of national sovereignty. The completion of German unity in 1871 had been accomplished by the forcible annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, two provinces inhabited largely by persons of French blood and language. This was an ever-present challenge to the French to attempt to regain these lost provinces. The Italians had a grievance against Austria because certain strips of territory inhabited by Italians remained in Austrian hands. Poland since the eighteenth century had been divided between Prussia, Russia, and Austria. Austria-Hungary herself presented the nationalist problem in its most acute form. The Hapsburg dynasty, with its capital at Vienna, rules over a great number of countries and

provinces inhabited by many races speaking not less than ten distinct languages. One of its greatest difficulties has been to reconcile the interests of the German population of Austria proper with those of the Hungarians on the one hand and of the various Slavic peoples - Bohemians, Poles, Croats, Serbs, etc. — on the other.

on the other. In 1867 the Empire was divided into two practically independent countries: Austria, dominated by the German element, and Hungary, where the Hungarians are the rulers. This arrangement has been bitterly resented by the Slavs in the Empire because it has kept them in an inferior political position. The Austrian authorities, realizing that the triumph of nationalism would mean the disappearance of the Empire and its parceling out among the surrounding nations, have been fearful of all nationalist movements, – especially that of the southern Slavs.

One of these groups, the Serbs, has been particularly active. Part of the Serbs lived in the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, since 1908, have been a part of Austria. Others lived in the kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro, still others in Turkey in Europe. The ambition of the Pan-Serbian movement was to unite all these people of the Serbian race under one government—Greater Serbia. This Pan-Serbian movement was closely identified with the assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria. The fear of Austria that the movement might succeed was an important motive in causing her to declare war on Serbia on July 28, 1914.

Military Alliances. Bismarck, whose policy of "blood and iron" had brought about the German Empire, believed in a system of firm alliances as a guiding principle of statesmanship. In an effort to isolate France, he strove to unite Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary in a defensive alliance (1872). Russia withdrew from this alliance in

« ПретходнаНастави »